HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 6878 of 2026 Court No. - 5 HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J. 1. Heard Ms. Rama Goel Bansal, learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioners and Sri Prashant Shukla, learned counsel, who appears for defendant- respondents. 2. In view of the order, which is being proposed to be passed today, notices are not being issued to the proforma respondents. 3. The counsel for the rival parties have made a joint statement that they do not propose to file any further affidavits thus with the consent of the parties, writ petition is being decided at the fresh stage. 4. The case of the plaintiff-petitioners is that the plaintiff-petitioners is instituted an Original Suit No. 781 of 2022 seeking permanent injunction the defendants therein from interfering the possession of the property in question and not to otherwise dislodge them other than in accordance with law along with the said plaint, an application under order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC came to be preferred and the trial court and the court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Court No. 2, Mathura in Original Suit No. 781 of 2022 p assed an injunction order on 31.03.2023 restraining the defendants from dislodging or evicting the plaintiffs-petitioners from the property being Khata no. 120 (new no.119), Khsra no. 225 measuring an area of 3.238 half share i.e. 1.619 hectare situated at Mauja Surir Bijau Bangar, Tehsil-Mant, District-Mathura. Aggrieved against the same, the defendant-respondents preferred a Civil Miscellenous Appeal before the Court of Additional District Judge, Court no.1, Mathura which came to be allowed on Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ashish Bansal, Rama Goel Bansal, Shalini Goel Counsel for Respondent(s) : Prashant Shukla, Ram Prakash Upadhyay M/S Rawat Eint Ydyog And Another .....Petitioner(s) Thakur Dwarikanath Brijbhushan Virajman Mandir And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) 06.06.2026 while setting aside the order dated 31.03.2023. 5. Questioning the order dated 06.05.2026 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court no.1, Mathura in Misc. Civil Appeal no. 47 of 2023, the present has been preferred. 6. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioners has sought to argue that the order passed by the appellate court cannot be sustained even for a single moment. Particularly, when as per the recitals contained in the plaint itself, the case set up by the plaintiff-petitioners was that it was put in possession and by virtue of a rent deed dated 27.12.2003 on the payment of monthly rent. Submission is that once the plaintiff-petitioners happens to be a tenant then eviction can only be done in accordance with law as the plaintiff- petitioners is not trespasser or unauthorized occupant. Further submission is that that the trial court while granting injunction had considered the criteria which are to be adhered for grant of injunction i.e. prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss taking into account the rent deed. However, the appellate court has upset the findings on certain grounds which have no nexus with the reality despite the fact that there is no dispute for rather admission regarding the rent deed itself. 7. Sri Prashant Shukla who appeared for the defendants-respondents on the other hands submits that whatever might be the plaintiff-petitioners cannot insist for grant of injunction as a matter of right as the same is dependent upon various factors. According to him, there is a serious dispute regarding the veracity and the legality of rent deed and also the rent. However, according to him, the appellate order does not discuss the entire cases on correct perspectives. On his request, when the matter was taken up pre- recess, the matter was postponed to be taken post-recess while seeking instructions as to what would be the stand of the defendant-respondents. According to him, the defendant-respondents intend that the the order of the appellate court be set aside and matter stands remitted back to pass fresh orders. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records carefully. 9. Apparently, the entire suit hinges upon a rent deed. The question whether the rent deed is a genuine document or not is a subject matter of fact. On a pointed query being raised to the learned counsel for the defendants- A227 No. 6878 of 2026 2 respondents as to who is in the possession of the property? The answer is the plaintiff-petitioners. Once the position being so without going into the legality of the rent deed, this court is of the opinion that the appellate court ought to have done something more while considering the true impact of balance of convenience, irreparable loss and the prima facie case. Since the said exercise is lacking, thus, the order impugned cannot be sustained. 10. Accordingly, the order dated 06.05.2026 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court no.1, Mathura in Misc. Civil Appeal no. 47 of 2023 is set aside. 11. Matter stands remitted back to the appellate court to pass fresh orders. 12. The Court is mindful of the fact that the summer vacations are to commence from 01, June, 2026, thus, it is required that the appellate court without granting unnecessary adjournments shall decide the Civil Misc. Appeal which post remand is to be decided by August itself. 13. Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of. May 18, 2026 Ashu A227 No. 6878 of 2026 3 (Vikas Budhwar,J.) Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH KUMAR PRAJAPATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad