Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:143953 Court No. - 9 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 12356 of 2023 Petitioner :- Irfan Khan Respondent :- Shabbar Ali And 9 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Barmeshwar Nath Tiwari,Parijat Kumar Tiwari,Venu Gopal Counsel for Respondent :- Pankaj Agarwal Hon'ble Manish Kumar Nigam,J. 1. Rejoinder affidavit filed by counsel for the petitioner today, is taken on record. 2. This petition has been filed challenging the order dated 28.10.2022 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division) Aonla, Bareilly dismissing the application for interim injunction in Original Suit No. 162 of 2022. The appeal filed against the judgment and order dated 28.10.2022 was also dismissed by order dated 30.05.2023 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No. 14, Bareilly in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 09 of 2023. 3. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that in the Original Suit No. 162 of 2022 instituted by the plaintiff-petitioner on 28.09.2022, an ex-parte injunction order was granted to the petitioner. After service, the contesting defendants-respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed objection under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of C.P.C. inter alia claiming that earlier two suits being Original Suit No. 108 of 2020 and 507 of 2022 were filed by one Usman regarding the same property and for the same relief against the same defendants, which were withdrawn by the plaintiff in the aforesaid suits. The factum of filing the said suits was not disclosed by the plaintiff in the present suit and therefore, material concealment has been made by the plaintiff. It is further contended by counsel for the petitioner that without providing any opportunity to file objection to the application filed by the defendant-respondents under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of C.P.C., ex-parte injunction order granted in favour of the plaintiff-petitioner was recalled on the said ground. The appeal against the order rejecting the interim injunction application of the petitioner has also been dismissed. It has been further contended that in the two suits referred above, the petitioner was not the plaintiff and was only arrayed as defendant No. 10 and he was never served with the notice in the aforesaid suits. The plaintiff-petitioner had no knowledge of the said suits, therefore, the courts below have erroneously rejected the application for interim injunction filed by the plaintiff-petitioner on the ground that there was material concealment by the plaintiff- petitioner in the present suit. 3. Sri Pankaj Agarwal, counsel for the contesting respondents submitted that earlier two suits i.e. Original Suit No. 108 of 2020 and 507 of 2022 were filed by one Usman claiming injunction regarding the property in dispute with the allegation that the plaintiff and defendant Nos. 5 to 11 are the co-owners of the land in dispute. The petitioner was arrayed as defendant No. 10 in the suit. It has been contended by Sri Pankaj Agarwal, Advocate that in fact the Original Suit No. 108 of 2020 was filed not only for the rights of the plaintiff- Usman but also for the rights of defendant Nos. 5 to 11. The said suit was dismissed as withdrawn by order dated 09.02.2021. Thereafter, Usman filed another suit regarding the same property for injunction being Original Suit No. 507 of 2022 claiming the same rights for the plaintiff as well as for defendant Nos. 3 to 10, wherein again the present plaintiff- petitioner was arrayed as defendant No. 10. In the said suit, no injunction order was granted and was ultimately, withdrawn by order dated 20.09.2022. Two days thereafter, the present suit was institued without disclosing the filing of earlier suits, which were filed by Usman, not only for his rights but also for the rights of the present plaintiff-petitioner along with his other co-tenure holders and therefore, it is nothing but the abuse of the process of court that once no injunction was granted in two earlier suits, the same were withdrawn and now a third suit has been instituted by one of the co-tenure holders for the same property. 4. In reply to this, counsel for the petitioner submitted that earlier two suits were not filed within the knowledge of the petitioner and further that the aforesaid suits were filed by Usman in collusion with the defendant-respondents to prejudice the case of the petitioner and when the petitioner came to know about this, he instituted present suit. 5. Counsel for the respondent submitted that this plea has been raised for the first time before this Court. The petitioner had an opportunity to raise this plea before the appellate court when he filed the miscellaneous appeal but the said plea was not at all taken by the plaintiff-petitioner before the appellate court. 6. After considering the rival submissions of the parties and pursuing the order impugned, I am of the view that no illegality has been committed by the courts below in rejecting the application for temporary injunction filed by the plaintiff- petitioner. 7. Consequently, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. 8. Since the suit is pending, it would be appropriate that the same may be decided in accordance with law, expeditiously, after hearing all the concerned parties and giving a reasonable opportunity of leading evidence in respect of their case provided there is no other legal impediment and without being influenced by any of the observations made by this Court in the present case. Order Date :- 21.8.2025 Nitika Sri. (Manish Kumar Nigam,J.) Digitally signed by :- NITIKA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad