HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 16066 of 2025 Court No. - 9 HON'BLE ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL, J. 1. This is a defendant's petition. Plaintiff-respondent no.1 had instituted Suit No.763 of 1996 against the defendants-petitioners and respondent no.2 for declaring the Will deed dated 01.11.1993 as null and void alleged to have been executed by his father in favour of the defendants. The said suit was dismissed for want of prosecution, but according to the respondents' counsel, the said suit was restored to its original number. 2. It appears that in the year 2006, the plaintiff-respondent no.1 had filed another Suit no.480 of 2006 claiming relief for permanent injunction in respect of the suit property restraining the defendants from interfering in his peaceful possession. In the said suit, there is no disclosure as to the pendency of suit filed in the year 1996. Moreover, in paragraphs no.5 and 6 of the plaint, it has been alleged by plaintiff-respondent no.1 that it is a joint property and no partition has taken place between the co-sharers. 3. An application 6-C2 was moved for grant of temporary injunction which was rejected by the trial Court on 24.09.2025. Against the said order, a misc. civil appeal was preferred by respondent no.1 which has been allowed by the order impugned dated 22.11.2025, hence the present writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the second suit was not maintainable as the first suit was for declaring the Will deed as null and void and in that suit no relief was sought in respect of the suit property mentioned in the second suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent no.1. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Anugya Dwivedi, Girja Shanker Mishra, Pratiksha Rai Counsel for Respondent(s) : Ramakant Singh Rampat And 3 Others .....Petitioner(s) Shripat And Another .....Respondent(s) According to her, the amendment should have been moved in the first suit filed for the relief as claimed in the suit of 2006. 5. Learned counsel appearing for respondent no.1 submits that till date the partition had not taken place and the plaintiff-respondent no.1 has a share in the property and the Court below has rightly proceeded to pass an order of status quo. 6. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 7. It is an admitted case that petitioners no.1 and 2 and respondent no.1 are the sons of late Chulbul, while respondent no.2 is the wife of late Chulbul. The Will was executed on 01.11.1993 in favour of defendants- petitioners by late Chulbul. The said Will was challenged through Suit No.763 of 1996. It appears that the said suit was dismissed for want of prosecution on 21.11.2024, which according to the respondents' counsel has been restored to its original number. 8. In the meantime, in the year 2006, another suit claiming relief for permanent injunction restraining the defendants was filed by respondent no.1 being Original Suit No.480 of 2006, in which, there is no disclosure about the pendency in the suit filed by respondent no.1 in the year 1996. Only relief for permanent injunction has been sought and no relief as to the partition of the suit property has been claimed by the respondent no.1. The trial Court has rightly rejected the application for grant of temporary injunction which has been reversed by the appellate Court. The appellate Court had wrongly held that as the suit of 1996 is pending in which alleged Will deed dated 01.11.1993 is under challenge, the property needs to be protected. The Court below failed to consider that there is no injunction order operating in the suit of 1996. 9. Moreover, the plaintiff-respondent should have got the suit amended and relief for permanent injunction should have been sought in suit of 1996. Fresh suit is barred under Order II Rule 2 CPC in respect of the same property. 10. In view of the said fact, I find that the order impugned dated 22.11.2025 is unsustainable in the eyes of law and the same is hereby set A227 No. 16066 of 2025 2 aside. 11. The writ petition stands allowed. September 11, 2026 A. V. Singh A227 No. 16066 of 2025 3 (Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.) Digitally signed by :- AJAY VIKRAM SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad