HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 6849 of 2026 Court No. - 5 HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J. 1. Heard Sri Madhusudan Dikshit, learned counsel for the defendant- petitioner. 2. In view of the order, which is being proposed to be passed today, notices are not being issued to the plaintiff-respondents. 3. The case of the defendant-petitioner is that with respect to the purchase of a property, a registered sale deed stood executed by the plaintiff-petitioner in favour of the defendant-respondent on 23.03.2024. The total sale consideration was Rs.6 lacs. However, as per the averments contained in the plaint, a cheque bearing no.0916068 came to be drawn by the defendant- petitioner in favour of the plaintiff-respondent, reference whereof has been made in registered sale deed, the same came to be dishonoured. As per the recital contained in para-23 of the plaint, the defendant-petitioner is alleged to have made two payments, one on 08.04.2024 and second on 17.04.2024 of an amount of Rs.4,50,000/- each. However, when the defendant-petitioner approached for return of Rs.3,00,000/-, which was paid in excess. Now, the Original Suit no.5654 of 2024, Smt. Gyanwati vs. Jahid Ahmad came to be instituted before the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Devision), Havali, Saharanpur for cancellation of the sale deed. Thereafter by virtue of the order dated 19.08.2025, an injunction order came to be passed restraining the defendant petitioner for creating third-party rights. Against which Misc. Appeal came to be preferred which has been rejected by the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Court no.3, Saharanpur on 10.03.2026, in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 178 of 2026. 4. Questioning both the orders, the present petition has been preferred. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Madhusudan Dikshit Counsel for Respondent(s) : Zahid Ahmed .....Petitioner(s) Gyanwati .....Respondent(s) 5. Learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner has sought to argue that the order impugned cannot be sustained for the simple reason that already the defendant petitioner had paid Rs.6 lacs against the total sale consideration of Rs.9 lacs. Thus the injunction order could not have been passed, as now, the plaintiff-respondent has become dishonest. While inviting attention towards the bank statement, it is contended that Rs.4,50,000/- and Rs.4,50,000/- has already been transferred by the defendant-petitioner in the account of the plaintiff-respondent and now on account of the injunction order, the defendant petitioner cannot even mortgage the property in any manner whatsoever. However, he submits that there has been no consideration of prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss. 6. I have heard the submissions so made across the bar and perused the record carefully. 7. Apparently, with respect to execution of the sale deed, the total consideration was Rs.6 lacs. The cheque so referred to the sale deed stood dishonoured and the defendant-petitioner claims to have withdrawn the amount of Rs.9,00,000/- through RTGS and then Rs.3 lacs have been sought to be demanded in return back, now the suit for cancellation has been filed. The question whether the said Rs.4,50,000/- + Rs.4,50,000/- was relatable to the amount of the sale consideration, which is Rs.6,00,000/- is a question of trial wherein evidences are to be seen. The trial court as well as the appellate court has only restraint the defendant-petitioner in creating third party right. 8. In the opinion of the Court, in order to avoid multiplicity and complications, the injunction orders came to be passed. The prima facie case, balance of convenience and the irreparable loss has not been considered. Whatever arguments which the defendant-petitioner is seeking to raise, they are relatable to the evidence in that regard. 9. Accordingly, no good ground is made out to interfere. The petition stands disposed of leaving it open for the defendant-petitioner to take all legal and factual grounds while contesting the suit. This Court has no reason to disbelieve that the suit shall be decided with most expedition. May 18, 2026 N.S.Rathour A227 No. 6849 of 2026 2 (Vikas Budhwar,J.) Digitally signed by :- NIPENDRA SINGH RATHOUR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad