HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 15428 of 2026 Court No. - 36 HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR NIGAM, J. 1. Heard Shri Anil Mehrotra, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Abhishek Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel and learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the record. 2. This writ petition has been filed seeking following relief :- "It is, therefore, Most Respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to allow the instant Petition and be further pleased to set-aside the Order dated 09.04.2026 passed by the Respondent No. 2 in 'Appeal / Case No. D201916660000091 of 2019' (now numbered as 'CASE NO. RST/1780/2025' Computerised 'Case No. D202516660001780 of 2025;Amarnath Pandey Vs. Om Prakash Pandey', as well as be further pleased to issue the necessary direction to the Respondent No. 2 for deciding the Stay Application filed in the aforesaid Appeal / Case within the stipulated period and / or be further pleased to direct both the parties, i.e., the Private-Respondents No. 5 and 6 herein for maintaining the strict status-quo with regard to the nature and possession over the Suit / Appeal / Case property, i.e., 'Gata No. 251घ Area 2-19-0' and 'Gata No. 252ग Area 1-2-0', situated at: 'Village - Auri, Pargana - Sinrauli, Tehsil Dudhi, District: Sonbhadra', as otherwise, the Petitioners/Appellants would suffer irreparable loss and injury, and / or be further pleased to pass such other and further order /orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case in the interest of Justice." 3. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that in appeal, petitioner preferred certain stay applications of various dates. All such applications have been rejected by the Appellate Court on the ground that opposite parties have appeared and parties are ready to argue the matter, therefore, there is no reason to pass an interim order. It has been further contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that such view is wholly erroneous, application for interim relief ought not to have been rejected on this ground that parties are ready to argue the matter. 4. Since the proceedings are pending, no useful purpose would be served in keeping Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ashutosh Kumar Saroj, Srijan Mehrotra Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Pradeep Singh Kamal Pandey And Another .....Petitioner(s) State Of Uttar Pradesh And 5 Others .....Respondent(s) this writ petition pending. 5. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2 to consider and decide the above-mentioned proceedings, in accordance with law, expeditiously, preferably, within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order, after ensuring service of notice upon all the respondents and providing opportunity of hearing to all the concerned parties as well as giving a reasonable opportunity of leading evidence in respect of their case provided there is no other legal impediment. 6. It is made clear that this Court has not examined the matter on merits. Till disposal of the aforesaid proceedings, parties are directed to maintain status quo. 7. It is further provided that petitioner shall co-operate in disposal of the aforesaid proceedings and will not seek any undue adjournments to linger on the proceedings and in case any effort is being made by the petitioner, the interim protection granted by this Court shall automatically be vacated. April 23, 2026 Rishabh WRIC No. 15428 of 2026 2 (Manish Kumar Nigam,J.) Digitally signed by :- RISHABH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- RISHABH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad