Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:72738 Court No. - 9 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 1579 of 2017 Petitioner :- Bhuri Singh And 2 Others Respondent :- Anil Kumar And 11 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rishikesh Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- Sudeep Harkauli Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J. 1. Heard Sri Rishikesh Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Sudeep Harkauli, learned counsel for respondent no. 1. 2. The plaintiff-respondent no. 1 had filed Civil Suit No. 1063 of 2015 claiming relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants-petitioners from interfering in his peaceful possession. In para no. 5 of the plaint, plaintiff had specifically alleged that oral partition had taken place between the co-shares who are arrayed as defendants in the suit from whom he has purchased the property in dispute. It was further alleged that defendant-petitioner had also purchased the property from one of the co-sharer. It is the contesting defendant who is interfering in the possession of the plaintiff. An application for grant of temporary injunction 8C was moved which was allowed by trial court on 27.05.2016 directing the defendant not to interfere in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff. Against the said judgment, a misc. appeal was preferred by defendant-petitioner under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) CPC which has been dismissed by order impugned. Hence, this writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that the relief granted by trial court as well as the appellate court allowing the interim injunction application amounts to final relief. According to him, matter is still engaging attention before the trial court. 4. Sri Sudeep Harkauli, learned counsel appearing for plaintiff- respondent submits that it is an admitted case to both the parties that oral partition had taken place between co-sharers pursuant to which the property was transferred to petitioner as well as to the respondent. The defendant is interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff which had led to the filing of the Suit No. 1063 of 2015. 5. I have heard respective counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 6. From perusal of the orders impugned, I find that the trial court while granting interim injunction had exceeded in allowing the application 8C directing the defendant not to interfere in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff which was the final relief claimed in the plaint by respondent no. 1. 7. However, looking to the facts of the case that it is an admitted case that oral partition had already taken place between the co- sharers from whom both the plaintiff and defendant had purchased the property, parties are hereby directed to maintain status quo over the property in dispute till the disposal of Suit No. 1063 of 2015. The interim injunction order granted by trial court is modified to this extent. 8. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. Order Date :- 6.5.2025 V.S.Singh Digitally signed by :- VIDYA SAGAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad