HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 11677 of 2026 Court No. - 55 HON'BLE VIKRAM D. CHAUHAN, J. In Re:Amendment Application No.2 of 2026 This is an application for amendment of in the prayer clause of the petition. Learned counsel for opposite parties has no objection. The amendment application is allowed. Let necessary amendment be carried out during course of the day. In Re:Impleadment Application No.4 of 2026 This is an application for impleadment of Upziladhikari, Tehsil-Aurai, District Bhadohi as respondent no.5. Learned counsel for respondent nos.2 to 4 has no objection. The impleadment application is allowed. Let necessary impleadment be carried out during course of the day. In Memo of Petition It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that after Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Avatans Mishra, Ram Krishna Mishra Counsel for Respondent(s) : Ashok Kumar Singh, G.A. Karuna Kant .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) the death of his father the property devolved in three brothers. The property in question is a un-partitioned property being Arazi no.89, although the petitioner and his brothers were living in different parts of the property in question. However, there was no formal partition deed. The respondent nos.2 to 4 has purchased the aforesaid property and the respondent nos.2 to 3 are trying to dislodge the petitioner. An order was passed on 10.7.2026 by the Magistrate concerned fixing the date as 25.7.2026. In the meantime, on 10.7.2026 itself another order was passed thereby attaching the property in question, against which, revision was filed. The revisional court has rejected the stay application on the ground that the petitioner is claiming his land in Arazi no.87. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is an admitted fact that the petitioner is co-owner of the property in question in respect of which a civil suit is already pending. Therefore, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate has no jurisdiction to enter the matter and the respondent nos.2 to 4 being the subsequent purchaser was required to file the partition suit. Learned counsel for respondent nos.2 to 4 submits that the respondent nos.2 to 4 is the subsequent purchaser of the property from one of the co-owners. The petitioner was claiming possession in Arazi no.87, as a result of the same, the revisional court has rejected the stay application. It is to be seen that the petitioner being the original co-owner of the property and respondent no.2 being the subsequent purchaser, it is for the respondent no.2 to claim possession of the property in question through lawful proceedings or by partition of the property. The trial court has erred in law in considering the aforesaid aspect of the matter. Be that as it may, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, since the revision is pending before the revisional court, this Court is of the view that the revisional court may A227 No. 11677 of 2026 2 decide the revision within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. Till the decision of the revision, status quo in respect of the property in question as existing today shall be maintained by the parties. The present petition stands disposed of. September 8, 2026 Bhaskar A227 No. 11677 of 2026 3 (Vikram D. Chauhan,J.) Digitally signed by :- BHASKAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad