HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 4662 of 2025 Court No. - 9 HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR NIGAM, J. 1. Heard Shri Vishwa Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Shreya Gupta, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the record. 2. This petition has been filed for setting aside the order dated 15.04.2025 passed by Civil Judge (J.D.) FTC, Court No. 1, Bareilly in Original Suit No. 268 of 2023 (Lions Club Bareilly versus Lions Vidya Mandir and others). 3. This Court while entertaining this petition, issued notice to the plaintiff/respondents and stayed the operation and effect of order dated 15.04.2025 passed by the Civil Judge (J.D.) FTC, Court No. 1, Bareilly. 4. Ms. Shreya Gupta, learned counsel for the plaintiffs/respondents contended that against the order impugned by which an interim injunction has been granted in favour of the plaintiffs/respondents the petitioner who are defendants in the suit has remedy of filing an appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(r) C.p.C. and this petition may not be entertained by this Court. 5. Brief facts of the case are that Original Suit No. 268 of 2023 was filed by the plaintiffs/respondents in the court of Civil Judge (J.D.) Bareilly for the relief of cancellation of decree dated 26.10.2017 passed by Civil Judge (J.D.) Bareilly in Original Suit No. 218 of 2017 (Lions Vidya Mandir versus Loins Club Bareilly and others) and declare the same to be null and void and not binding on the plaintiff. Along with the suit, the plaintiffs/respondents also filed an application for interim injunction Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Vishwa Pratap Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : Ashish Kumar Singh, Shreya Gupta Lions Vidya Mandir And Another .....Petitioner(s) Lion Club Bareilly And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 C.P.C. The application for interim injunction filed by the plaintiffs/respondents was allowed by the trial court vide order dated 15.04.2025, hence, the present writ petition has been filed. 6. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the suit as filed was not maintainable as a decree dated 26.10.2017 passed in Original Suit No. 218 of 2017, was a compromise decree between the parties and in view of the provisions of Order 23 Rule 3-A C.P.C., suit was not maintainable and the proper course for the plaintiff/respondents was to move an application before the court below for setting aside the compromise decree. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment passed in case of Navratan Lal Sharma v. Radha Mohan Sharma & Others reported in 2025 (1) SCC 625. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the plaintiffs/respondents submitted that the present plaintiffs were not party to the suit and therefore, the suit in fact was a result of collusion between the defendants in the present suit. It has been further submitted by learned counsel for the plaintiffs/respondents that at the time of disposal of the interim injunction application, the defendants/petitioners were duly served. Defendant no. 2 and 4 presented before the court below but did not file any objection to the application for the interim injunction. The proceedings against defendant no. 3 were taken ex-parte. Several opportunities were granted by the trial court but the defendants/respondents did not file any objection or argued the matter and therefore, the application for interim injunction was decided by the trial court. It has also been submitted by learned counsel for the plaintiffs/respondents that defendant no. 3 filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 (d) C.P.C. for rejection of the plaint on the ground that in view of provision of Order 23 Rule 3-A C.P.C. the present suit was not maintainable. The said application was rejected by the trial court by order dated 11.02.2025. It has been further contended by learned counsel for the plaintiffs/respondents that the said order rejecting the application filed by the defendants under Order 7 Rule 11(d) C.P.C. has become final as the same has not been challenged. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, without entering A227 No. 4662 of 2025 2 into the question of maintainability of the suit, and in view of the fact that the application under Order 7 Rule 11 (d) C.P.C. filed by the defendants has already been rejected and the same has not been challenged any further by the defendants as submitted by learned counsel for the plaintiffs/respondents which has not been denied by the learned counsel for the petitioner the present writ petition is not to be entertained by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as the defendants/petitioners have an alternative remedy of filing an appeal against the order granting temporary injunction. 9. Since the petitioners have an alternative remedy, I am not inclined to entertain the instant petition. 10. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to avail the remedy as available to them under law. 11. Certified copy of the orders, if any, be returned to learned counsel for the petitioner after retaining photo copy of the same. September 8, 2025 Ved Prakash A227 No. 4662 of 2025 3 (Manish Kumar Nigam,J.) Digitally signed by :- VED PRAKASH SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad