Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:132635 Court No. - 9 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 8586 of 2025 Petitioner :- Lalta Prasad And 6 Others Respondent :- State Of Uttar Pradesh And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Abhishek Kumar Yadav,Ravindra Nath Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi,C.S.C. Hon'ble Manish Kumar Nigam,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2. The instant writ petition has been filed for following reliefs: " 1. Issue an order or direction to set aside the order dated 30.11.2023 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Shahganj, Jaunpur in Original Suit No. 345 of 1997 (Ram Surat Yadav Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another) and order dated 27.02.2025 passed by Additional District Judge-I, Jaunpur (J.O. Code-U.P.- 6112) in Revision No. 11 of 2024 (Lalta Prasad Yadav and others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another) as well as Restoration Application dated 06.07.2022 filed before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Teshil-Shahganj, District-Jaunpur regard to recall the order dated 14.06.1996 passed under Section 123(1) U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act and revive the interim stay order dated 20.05.1997 at preset so the petitioners may not be dispossess from the Land Arazi No. 841, Area 10 Decimil on the spot. II. Issue an order or direction commanding the court below not to dispossess to the plaintiffs/petitioners from the Land Arazi No. 841, Area 10 Decimil pending in the court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Shahganj, Jaunpur in Original Suit No. 345 of 1997 (Ram Surat Yadav Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another) by the defendants/respondents." 3. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the suit instituted by the father of the petitioners in the year 1997 was dismissed in default in the year 2016. A restoration application filed by the petitioners in the year 2022 has been allowed but the order granting interim injunction was not restored. The application for restoring interim injunction has been rejected by the trial court and the revision filed by the petitioners has also been rejected. Trial court has recorded a finding that since the suit was dismissed for about six years and the application for interim injunction Paper No. 6-C is pending consideration, it would be more appropriate to decide the application for interim injunction. 4. In my view no illegality has been committed by the court below. 5. Accordingly, the present petition stands disposed of finally with a direction to court below to consider and decide the aforementioned interim injunction application (6C Application), in accordance with law, expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order after ensuring service upon all the opposite parties, giving opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned and without granting unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties provided that there is no other legal impediment. Order Date :- 6.8.2025 Nitika Sri. (Manish Kumar Nigam,J.) Digitally signed by :- NITIKA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad