Allahabad High Court
Narendra Singh vs Mahendra Sing And Another on 6 May, 2026
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Neutral Citation No. - 2026:AHC:104534 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 5833 of 2026 Narendra Singh .....Petitioner(s) Versus Mahendra Sing And Another .....Respondent(s) Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Mohd. Saleem Khan Counsel for Respondent(s) : Abhishek, Ajay Singh, Ramendra Asthana Court No. - 5 HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J.
1. Heard Sri Mohd. Saleem Khan, learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner and Sri Ramendra Asthana along with Sri Abhishek, learned counsel, who appears for defendant-respondents.
2. The counsel for the rival parties have made a joint statement that they do not propose to file any further affidavits thus with the consent of the parties, writ petition is being decided at the fresh stage.
3. The case of the plaintiff-petitioner is that the plaintiff-petitioner had instituted in Original Suit No. 350 of 2025 (Narendra Singh Vs. Mahendra Singh and others) seeking permanent injunction against the defendants therein along with the plaint, an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC for grant of temporary injunction was also filed. On 03.07.2025, the Court while entertaining the suit, issue notices and did not grant interim injunction. However, according to the plaintiff-petitioner, on the very next date i.e. 04.07.2025 at 11.00 in the noon, the defendants in the said suit barged into the premises of the plaintiff-petitioner and started creating obstacles and hindrances, thus, an application under section 151 CPC came to be preferred for issuing of an appropriate directions restraining the defendant therein not to forcefully dispossessing the plaintiff-petitioner. On the said application, on 05.07.2025, an injunction order was passed restraining the defendants therein from interfering. Against the said order, a Civil Revision No. 36 of 2025 came to be preferred by the defendants-respondent which has been allowed on 30.03.2026 requiring the trial court to decide the application 6(C).
4. Questioning the same, the petitioner has been filed the present petition.
5. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner has sought to argue that the order passed by the revisional court cannot be sustained for more than one reason firstly against the interlocutory order, revision would not lie and secondly in-extraordinary circumstances which had emerged due to subsequent events post passing of the order on 03.07.2025 it occasioned the plaintiff-petitioner to file an application under Section 151 CPC for grant of protection which has been rightly allowed in that regard.
6. Countering the said submissions, Sri Ramendra Asthana along with Sri Abhishek, learned counsel, who appears for defendant-respondents submits that revision itself is maintainable, particularly, in view of the judgment in the case of Satya Prakash and another v. Ist Additional District Judge and others; AIR 2002 All. 198. Submission is also to the extent that none of the criteria being prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss has considered while passing the orders in the proceedings under Section 151 CPC.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records carefully.
8. Apparently, the suit was instituted by the plaintiff-petitioner, notices were issued and thereafter proceedings under Section 151 CPC came to be instituted as interim protection was not accorded under Order 39 of Rule 1 and 2 CPC.
9. Plainly and simply, the consideration which weighed with the revisional authority was that neither the prima facie case nor balance of convenience or irreparable loss has been considered while deciding the proceedings under Section 151 CPC.
10. In the opinion of the Court, the three ingredients are to be adverted too while granting injunction or while refusing to grant injunction since the said exercise is lacking, thus, rightly the revisional court set aside the order.
11. At this stage, learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner submits that the matter stands remitted back to the trial court to decide the application 6(C) afresh on the next date fixed as 20.05.2026. He, however, apprehends that the Court is vacant, thus, on that date, the injunction application would not be considered.
12. Accordingly, the interference is declined, the petition stands disposed of. Leaving it open to the plaintiff-petitioner to prefer an appropriate application before the court below insisting for disposal of the application under Order 39 of Rule 1 and 2 CPC on the next date fixed i.e. 20.05.2026. In case, the court is vacant, it is always for the plaintiff-petitioner to approach the District Judge concerned who shall thereupon assign the matter to a Court which is already functioning.
(Vikas Budhwar,J.) May 6, 2026 Ashu