Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 7217 (ALL)

SMT ARCHANA GUPTA AND ANOTHER v. STATE OF U.P. AND 6 OTHERS

WRIC/35812/2026 · 2026-09-15

Ajit Kumar, Siddharth Nandan

Civil Appealbody2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 35812 of 2026 Court No. - 1 HON'BLE AJIT KUMAR, J. HON'BLE SIDDHARTH NANDAN, J. 1. Heard Sri Santosh Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. 2. Petitioner claims to have purchased property from the erstwhile owner, who had instituted Original Suit No. 173 of 1979 against one Om Prakash seeking a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction. It is sought to be contended that after the decree was passed on 19.03.2021, Om Prakash unsuccessfully contested the Civil Appeal No.19 of 2021, which was dismissed on 05.12.2022. Petitioner purchased the property from the original owner, Hari Singh Kushwaha on 24.12.2022. However, in the meanwhile, defendant-respondent Om Prakash filed Second Appeal No. 203 of 2022 against the decree of permanent prohibitory injunction in which the Court while admitting the appeal, passed an order to exchange the pleadings and further provided, vide order dated 06.04.2023, till the next date of listing, no third party rights shall be created over the property in question. 3. According to the petitioner, therefore, the right in the property had already been created in his favor by the original owner as vendor, prior to passing of the order by this Court in the pending Second Appeal and it is on this basis that the respondent-appellant is interfering with the possession of the petitioner. 4. In our considered view, once the matter is sub judice before this Court in the Second Appeal and interim protection has been granted, petitioner Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Santosh Yadav Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Smt Archana Gupta And Another .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 6 Others .....Respondent(s) may seek appropriate clarification either by filing an application seeking impleadment as a successor of the original owner or through original owner, who is already a party to the Second Appeal. No parallel proceedings can be permitted to be pursued under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for granting protection to the petitioner against the order passed by this court in pending Second Appeal. 5. Subject to the aforesaid liberty, petition is consigned to record September 16, 2026 Junaid WRIC No. 35812 of 2026 2 (Siddharth Nandan,J.) (Ajit Kumar,J.) Digitally signed by :- JUNAID AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad