Allahabad High Court
Smt Rekha Devi And Another vs Santosh Kumar Dwivedi And Another on 1 April, 2026
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Neutral Citation No. - 2026:AHC:68952 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 4177 of 2026 Smt Rekha Devi And Another .....Petitioner(s) Versus Santosh Kumar Dwivedi And Another .....Respondent(s) Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Saurabh Raj Srivastava Counsel for Respondent(s) : Court No. - 5 HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J.
1. Heard Sri Saurabh Raj, learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioners.
2. In view of the order, which is being proposed to be passed today, notices are not being issued to the defendant-respondents.
3. The case of the plaintiff-petitioners is that an Original Suit No.205 of 2026, Smt. Rekha Devi and others vs. Santosh Kumar Dwivedi came to be instituted before the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Allahabad, verified on 24.02.2026 along with an application under Order 9 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC seeking a permanent injunction against the defendant-respondents, their agent servants restraining them from interfering in the possession of the demised land/property, which came to be purchased by the plaintiff-petitioners on 21.04.2018, 27.08.2019 and 15.04.2025. On the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC registered as Paper No.6C, on 24.02.2026, notices were issued upon the defendant-respondents, alleging that post issuance of the notices on 25.02.2026 in the evening the defendant-respondents along with others threatened to evict the plaintiff-petitioners from their peaceful occupation of the land/property in question, complaint whereof was made in IGRS portal and also proceedings were undertaken for lodging of the first information report.
4. Coupled with the said factors, the application being Paper No.11C under Section 151 CPC came to be preferred on 26.02.2026, which came to be rejected by the trial court on 26.02.2026.
5. Questioning both the orders, present writ petition has been preferred.
6. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioners has sought to argue that the plaintiff-petitioners are the rightful owners, who have been put to possession by virtue of the registered sale deed, which are three in number. Submission is that it is not a case wherein the plaintiff-petitioners are seeking injunction against the rightful owners, as here, the position is converse. The plaintiff-petitioners are the original owners and that is why a suit came to be instituted along with an application under Order 9 Rule 1 and 2, in which though the notices were issued on 24.02.2026, but on 25.02.2026, certain events stood occurred, which compelled the plaintiff-petitioners to prefer application under Section 151 CPC, which has been rejected.
7. Prayer is that till disposal of 6C application pertaining to temporary injunction, this Court may safeguard the interest of the plaintiff-petitioners.
8. In the opinion of the Court though a Suit for permanent injunction has been instituted along with an application under Order 9 Rule 1 and 2 in which on 24.02.2026 notices were issued and fixing the date being 25.03.2026. Post the same, on 26.02.2026, an application under Section 151 CPC being Application no.11C came to be preferred on account of the incident dated 25.02.2026 and the said application came to be rejected on 26.02.2026. On a pointed query being raised to the learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioners as to what is the next date fixed, to which the court has been apprised that the next date fixed is 21.04.2026, thus bearing in mind that 6C application is still pending, thus it is provided that the Court below shall consider the 6C application of the plaintiff petitioner on the next date fixed bearing in mind the circumstances so shown by the plaintiff-petitioners. In case, for certain reasons beyond the control and comprehension the same is not considered, then the same shall be considered on the next date fixed in that regard.
9. With the said observations, the writ petition stands disposed of.
10. Passing of this order may not be construed to be an expression that this Court has gone into the merits of the case.
(Vikas Budhwar,J.) April 1, 2026 N.S.Rathour