HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 3838 of 2026 Court No. - 5 HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J. 1. Heard Sri Anoop Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the plaintiff- petitioner. 2. In view of the order, which is being proposed to be passed today, notices are not being issued to the defendant-respondents. 3. The case of the plaintiff-petitioner that he claims to be an owner and possession-holder of the land being part of Gata no. 1 area about 41.85 sq. meter (15x30) situated at village/Mauja- Subhash Nagar, Kasba-Sidhpura, Pargana Sidhpura, Tehsil- Patiyali, District- Kasganj, which the plaintiff- petitioner claims to have purchased by virtue of a registered sale-deed dated 08-12-2023. Since according to the plaintiff-petitioner, obstructions and interference were sought to be made by the defendant-respondents so the plaintiff-petitioner instituted O.S. No.89 of 2025, Mukesha Devi vs. Rajendra and others before the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) Kasganj seeking a permanent injunction. Along with the same, an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 also came to be preferred and according to the plaintiff-petitioner, an injunction order came to be passed of status quo on 06.11.2025. However, an application came to be preferred by the plaintiff- petitioner being Paper No. 48C2 for getting an Amin report, as according to him, Amin report is necessary, particularly when obstructions were being created and claim was being set up by the defendant-respondent. The said application on contest came to be rejected by virtue of the order dated 10.02.2026 with a further observation that in case arguments are not being advanced on the next date, the interim protection shall stand vacated. 4. Questioning the said order, the present petition has been preferred. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Anoop Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent(s) : Mukesha Devi .....Petitioner(s) Rajendra And 9 Others .....Respondent(s) 5. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner has sought to argue that the order impugned cannot be sustained for the simple reason that Amin Report was necessary, as in case Amin Report was taken into account post inspection of the site, then the entire controversy would have been cleared, particularly when claim has been set up by the defendant-respondent. Further submission is that in a cursory manner, without looking into the aspects of the matter, the order impugned has been passed. It is further contended that so far as the observations so made in the order impugned that the stay shall stand vacated on the next date in case arguments have not been advanced, now, the said grievance is no more required to be redressed, particularly when in a revision proceeding, the interim injunction stands continued. 6. I have heard the submissions so advanced across the Bar and perused the records carefully. 7. Plainly and simply, the bone of contention is that whether the Amin Report was necessary or not. As a matter of fact, the Trial Court after evaluating the entire aspect of the matter has come to the conclusion that at the stage of framing of issues, the things occasion, then Amin Report would be called in that regard and the dilatory tactics has been adopted. 8. In the opinion of the Court, no prejudice whatsoever is being caused, as the said option is already open and the said aspect would be taken as and when the same stands occasioned. 9. Accordingly, interference is declined. Resultantly, the writ petition stands disposed of. May 7, 2026 N.S.Rathour A227 No. 3838 of 2026 2 (Vikas Budhwar,J.) Digitally signed by :- NIPENDRA SINGH RATHOUR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad