HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 1460 of 2026 Court No. - 54 HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR-X, J. 1. Heard Shri Ramendra Ashtana, learned counsel for the appellants. 2. This appeal has been filed on behalf of the appellants with a prayer to set aside the order dated 17.3.2026 passed by the learned Additional C.J.M/Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court, No.4, Kanpur Nagar in Original Suit No.77 of 2026 (Smt. Rama Yadav & Ors. vs. Rajendra Kumar Rajpoot & Ors.) whereby temporary injunction has been granted in favour of the plaintiffs restraining the defendants from interfering with the use and possession of the plaintiffs over the land in question. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter shall be referred to by their nomenclature as assigned in the plaint. The appellants are the defendants and the respondent nos.1 and 2 are the plaintiffs in the aforesaid suit. Brief Facts of the Appeal 4. Briefly stated, Respondent-plaintiffs instituted Suit No. 77 of 2026 seeking relief of injunction. In the said suit, an application for temporary injunction was filed. The learned Trial Court, by order dated 17.03.2026, allowed the application and granted temporary injunction. 5. Thereafter, the Revisionist-defendants filed an application under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of Code of Civil Procedure before the learned Trial Court, contending, inter alia, that the order dated 17.03.2026 had been passed ex parte. The learned Trial Court, after considering the said application, set aside its earlier order dated 17.03.2026 by subsequent order dated Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Kuldeep Maurya, Ramendra Asthana Counsel for Respondent(s) : Dileep Kumar Ojha And 2 Others .....Appellant(s) Smt Rama Yadav And 4 Others .....Respondent(s) 14.08.2026 and fixed the matter for passing a fresh order on the application for temporary injunction after hearing both parties. The order dated 14.8.2026 passed by the learned Trial court has been filed alongwith supplementary affidavit. 6. Despite the order dated 17.03.2026 having already been set aside by the learned Trial Court, the Revisionist-defendants have challenged the said order in the present appeal. 7. At the very outset, it is significant to note that this Court is unable to appreciate the necessity of challenging the order dated 17.03.2026 after the same had already been set aside by the learned Trial Court. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant was heard at length. However, the real grievance sought to be raised in the present appeal could not be clearly understood. From the submissions made, it appears that the principal contention of learned counsel is that the learned Trial Court failed to consider the applicability of Section 10 CPC on the ground that similar issues are involved in O.S. No. 1589 of 2025, Ganga Sagar Vs. Vinod Yadav and others, and O.S. No. 1590 of 2025, Ganga Sagar and another Vs. Vinod Yadav and others. It was further submitted that the learned Trial Court failed to properly consider whether a prima facie case was made out before granting temporary injunction by order dated 17.03.2026. Conclusion 9. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the appellants and perused the record, this Court finds that the present appeal has become infructuous. The very order which is under challenge, i.e. order dated 17.03.2026, has already been set aside by the learned Trial Court by its subsequent order dated 14.08.2026. Thus, no effective relief can now be granted against the order dated 17.03.2026. 10. Once the order dated 17.03.2026 has ceased to exist, the questions whether the learned Trial Court rightly granted temporary injunction, whether a prima facie case existed, or whether Section 10 CPC was applicable, do not survive for consideration in the present appeal. These questions, if raised before the learned Trial Court, may be considered FAFO No. 1460 of 2026 2 while deciding the application for temporary injunction afresh after hearing both parties. 11. In view of the above, the present appeal is dismissed as having become infructuous. 12. It is, however, made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the temporary injunction application or on the applicability of Section 10 CPC. The learned Trial Court shall decide the pending injunction application, if any, independently, in accordance with law, without being influenced by any observation made in this judgment. September 3, 2026 SK FAFO No. 1460 of 2026 3 (Anil Kumar-X,J.) Digitally signed by :- SUSHEEL KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad