Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:107716-DB Court No. - 21 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 19878 of 2025 Petitioner :- Vikash Kumar Chauhan Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ram Naresh Nigam,Suresh Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J. Hon'ble Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J. 1. Heard Sri Suresh Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Rajiv Gupta, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondents. 2. The petitioner has prayed for a writ of mandamus directing the respondent nos. 2 and 3 to decide his application dated 31.05.2025, or in the alternative restore possession of Arazi No.1061 Ka and 1062, total area 34 decimal situated at Village Bahadur Ali Tappa Kasba, Pargana Haveli, Tehsil Sadar, District Gorakhpur. 3. The case of the petitioner is that in respect of the suit property, Original Suit No. 468 of 2018 was instituted by Smt. Shanti Devi and Sri Suresh, his father and mother against certain private persons for permanent prohibitory injunction, restraining them from interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs over the suit property and excavating mud from the suit land. The suit was decreed ex-parte on 03.03.2023 and thereafter an application for execution was filed by the decree holder and according to case set-up in the writ petition, the Amin delivered possession of the suit property to the decree holders with the aid of police force. Subsequently, it is alleged that certain persons have again taken possession of the suit land. Accordingly, the petitioner has filed the present representation praying for restoration of the possession in pursuance of the decree passed in Original Suit No. 468 of 2018. 4. The private persons who have allegedly taken possession of the suit land, are not before this Court as they have not been impleaded. Even their names have not been disclosed in the writ petition, nor in the representation filed by the petitioner before respondent no. 2. 5. It has come on record that an application for setting aside the ex-parte decree is pending at the behest of the defendants. 6. Under Order 21 Rule 32 CPC, a decree for permanent injunction could be put to execution. The said remedy is available to the petitioner in case he seeks execution of the decree passed by the trial Court. 7. In our considered opinion, the District Magistrate is not empowered to deliver possession to the petitioner in execution of a decree passed in favour of the parents of the petitioner by the Civil Court. 8. The petition is wholly, misconceived and is accordingly, dismissed. 9. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel shall communicate the instant order to the respondent no. 2 during the course of the day. . (R.M.N. Mishra, J.) (Manoj Kumar Gupta,J.) Order Date :- 8.7.2025 Monika Digitally signed by :- MONIKA KESARWANI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad