Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 9301 (ALL)

VIKRAM SINGH v. VIDYAWATI

A227/967/2021 · 2025-10-07

Manish Kumar Nigam

Original Suitbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 967 of 2021 Court No. - 5 HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR NIGAM, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2. This writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 5.11.2018 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division) in Original Suit No.672/2018 granting temporary injunction to the plaintiff-respondent and the order passed by the Appellate Court dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner by order dated 23.11.2019. 3. This Court while entertaining this writ petition passed following order on 6.7.2021 :- "Heard. By means of the instant writ petition, the petitioner-defendant is assailing the order dated 23.11.2019 passed by appellate court/Addl. District Judge, Court No.-7, Saharanpur in Misc. Appeal No. 102 of 2018 arising from the order dated 05.11.2018 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Saharanpur in Original Suit No. 672 of 2018 allowing the temporary injunction application. The short point raised by learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant is that the patta dated 26.06.1957 executed by predecessor of the present respondent/plaintiff (Kishan Lal) came to be finalized by this Court in Second Appeal No. 983 of 2012 (Dr. Jai Shanker Prasad Vs. Shri Mahadev Ji Maharaj) decided on 01.05.2019, whereby, the Court declared the patta to be void and illegal. It is urged that final judgment was placed on record of the appellate court vide application dated 23.07.2019 by the petitioner. The case set up by the respondent/plaintiffs was that they are in possession of the suit property pursuant to a patta dated 12.05.1989 executed by Anubhawanand, who had obtained the patta from Kishan Lal. In this backdrop, it is urged that even taking the assertion in the plaint on face value, the subsequently executed patta dated 12.05.1989 which is basis of instituting the suit was obtained from a person who had no right and authority as the right set up by Kishan Lal was set at naught by this Court in second appeal. In this backdrop, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent-plaintiff failed to to set up a prima facie case on admitted facts. In the impugned order, the Court below has wrongly Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Manish Tandon, Pankaj Agarwal Counsel for Respondent(s) : Abhishek Yadav, Tulsi Singh Yadav Vikram Singh .....Petitioner(s) Vidyawati .....Respondent(s) noted that the High Court has not decided the appeal till date and an interim order is operating in favour of the plaintiff. The observation recorded therein is per se perverse, which goes to the root of the lis. The submission requires consideration. Issue notice to respondent returnable at an early date. Steps to be taken within a week. Till the next date of listing, the effect and operation of the impugned order dated 23.11.2019 shall remain stayed." 4. At the very outset, both the Counsel agreed that a direction may be issued to the Court below to conclude the proceedings of the pending suit and both the parties be directed to maintain status quo. 5. Accordingly, this writ petition stands disposed of with a direction to the Additional District Judge, Court No.7, Saharanpur to conclude the proceedings of the Misc. Suit No.672 of 2018, expeditiously, preferably, within a period of one year from the date of production of a certified copy of this order after providing opportunity of hearing as well as reasonable opportunity to lead evidence to all the concerned parties in support of their case provided there is no other legal impediment. 6. Both the counsel have assured that their clients will co-operate and will not seek any undue adjournments to linger on the proceedings. 7. It is made clear that this Court has not examined the matter on merits and the order may be passed, strictly, in accordance with law. 8. Till disposal of the suit, both the parties are directed to maintain status quo with regard to nature, possession of the property. October 8, 2025 Rishabh A227 No. 967 of 2021 2 (Manish Kumar Nigam,J.) Digitally signed by :- RISHABH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad