HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 12243 of 2026 Court No. - 9 HON'BLE ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL, J. 1. Heard Sri Rahul Sahai, learned counsel for the defendants-petitioners and Ms. Rama Goel Bansal, learned counsel for plaintiff-respondent. 2. Plaintiff-respondent had filed a suit seeking relief for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in his peaceful possession. In the said suit, an application (Paper No.6-C) was moved for grant of temporary injunction. The trial Court, on 05.09.2025, had directed that the defendants shall not interfere in the suit property mentioned in the plaint, and further they will not interfere in the constructions raised by the plaintiff-respondent. 3. Aggrieved by the said order, defendants-petitioners had filed a Misc. Civil Appeal No.93 of 2024 which has been dismissed by the order impugned dated 15.05.2026. 4. Sri Rahul Sahai, learned counsel appearing for defendants-petitioners submits that the suit has been practically decreed by the trial Court which has been confirmed by the appellate Court. According to him, at the interim stage, the trial Court could not have granted relief as claimed in the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent. According to him, only an order of status quo could have been passed by the Court concerned. 5. Ms. Rama Goel Bansal, learned counsel appearing for plaintiff- respondent states that the disputes relates to only Rs.15 lakhs, which the plaintiff is ready to pay to defendants, who has not accepted the same. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Rahul Sahai Counsel for Respondent(s) : Rama Goel Bansal, Shalini Goel Mahesh Kumar And 2 Others .....Petitioner(s) Khemchand Sharma .....Respondent(s) 6. After hearing counsel for both the parties and perusing the material on record, I find that the trial Court has exceeded its jurisdiction in restraining the defendants-petitioners from interfering in peaceful possession and also in the construction raised by the plaintiff-respondent. The relief claimed in the suit has been granted at the interim stage by the trial Court, which has been confirmed by the appellate Court. 7. In view of the said fact, injunction order dated 05.09.2025 is hereby modified to the extent that the parties shall maintain status quo over the property in dispute till the disposal of the suit. 8. It is further observed that in case any application under Order XXXIX Rule 2-A CPC is filed by the plaintiff, the same shall be decided by the trial Court within next three months, considering the fact that parties have to maintain status quo over the property in dispute. 9. With the aforesaid observations, writ petition stands disposed of. September 8, 2026 SK Goswami A227 No. 12243 of 2026 2 (Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHIVAKANT GOSWAMI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad