Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:71545 Court No. - 35 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 11585 of 2025 Petitioner :- Uday Narayan Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Aushim Luthra,Mayank Chandra,Surya Pratap Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Manish Kumar Nigam,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State- respondents and perused the record. 2. The present petition has been filed with the following prayer: "i. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing of the impugned order dated 07.05.2024 passed by the respondent no. 2 as well as order dated 23.08.2024 passed by respondent no. 3 (Annexure No. 1 and 2)." 3. Brief facts of the case are that a suit under Section 144 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 was filed by the petitioner. In the aforesaid suit, an application for interim injunction was moved by the petitioner claiming himself to be in possession over the land in dispute for several years. The application has been rejected by the trial court by order dated 07.05.2024 on the ground that on the basis of possession injunction cannot be granted. Against this order, the petitioner filed a revision and the same has been dismissed. 4. The view taken by the appellate court is wholly erroneous. A suit for injunction is maintainable on the basis of possession and therefore, it will be wrong to say that interim injunction cannot be granted on the basis of possession only. 5. In view of the above, the order dated 07.05.2024 passed by the respondent no. 2 as well as order dated 23.08.2024 passed by respondent no. 3, are hereby quashed. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. 7. The stay application filed by the petitioner may be considered afresh after ensuring service upon all the opposite parties and giving opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned as well as opportunity to lead evidence in support of their case strictly in accordance with the principles as laid down by this Court as well as by Apex Court regarding grant of interim injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 C.P.C. and without granting unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties provided that there is no other legal impediment. 8. 8. It is made clear that this Court has not examined this case on merits and has set- aside the the order only on the ground that view taken by the trial court was erroneous that on the basis of possession, injunction cannot be granted. This Court has also not examined the question of possession involved in the present case. Order Date :- 5.5.2025 Ved Prakash (Manish Kumar Nigam,J.) Digitally signed by :- VED PRAKASH SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad