Allahabad High Court
Satnam Kaur And 2 Others vs Gurudwara Baba Deep Singh Nawab Ganj And ... on 7 April, 2026
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Neutral Citation No. - 2026:AHC:75098 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 4468 of 2026 Satnam Kaur And 2 Others .....Petitioner(s) Versus Gurudwara Baba Deep Singh Nawab Ganj And 4 Others .....Respondent(s) Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Kabeer Tiwari, Sr. Advocate Counsel for Respondent(s) : Court No. - 5 HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J.
1. Heard Sri Anil Tiwari, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Kabeer Tiwari counsel for the defendant-respondents
2. In view of the order which is being proposed to be passed, notices are not being issued to the plaintiff-respondents.
3. The case of the defendant-respondents as worded in the present petition is that the defendant-petitioner no. 1 is the trustee of the Gurdwara Baba Deep Singh which is managed and administered by registered trust namely Gurdwara Baba Deep Singh Saheed Sewa Smarak Trust and the defendant-petitioner no. 2 claims himself to be the Secretary of the said Trust whereas defendant-petitioner no. 3 as Sevadar. According to the defendant-petitioners they got instituted a Original Suit No. 216 of 2025 through its trustee Satnam Kaur before the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Rampur seeking a declaratory injunction along with the said suit, an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 came to be preferred and the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rampur vide order dated 14.08.2025 accorded interim injunction in favour of the defendant-petitioners.
4. Aggrieved against which the plaintiff-petitioners preferred Misc. Appeal in 2025 before the Court of Additional District Judge, Rampur which is pending consideration but there is no interim injunction passed in their favour. As per the defendant-petitioners, the plaintiff-respondents despite having full knowledge about the injunction order passed in Original Suit No. 216 of 2025 on 14.08.2025 and pendency of a misc. appeal, there is no injunction order instituted Original Suit No. 57 of 2026 seeking a permanent injunction against the defendant-respondents from interfering in the Langar Seva, Danpatra and Gullak etc. The said suit was verified on 26.02.2026 and according to the defendant-petitioners, they were already apprehending that suit would be instituted against them in a surreptitious manner without disclosing the pendency of the Original Suit No. 216 of 2025 as well as the factum of existence of injunction order so they as an abundant precaution preferred an application on 26.02.2026 being Paper No. 20-C seeking a relief to the extent that they may be heard before passing of any injunction order certified copy of is Annexure-9 at page 98 of the paper book reference whereof has been made in paragraph 22 of the petition. According to the defendant-petitioners, without considering the said request on 26.02.2026 in Original Suit No. 57 of 2026, the Incharge, Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rampur proceeded to grant an interim injunction order. Thereafter, the defendant-petitioners preferred proceedings under Order 39 Rule 4 read with Section 151 of the CPC for vacation of the ex parte injunction order passed in Original Suit No. 57 of 2026 on 05.03.2026 which is Annexure-10 at page 101 of the paper book reference whereof has been made in para 27 of the petition and just in order to linger on the delay disposal of the application under Order 39 Rule 4 read with Section 151 of the CPC, a transfer application came to be preferred by the plaintiff-respondents on 07.03.2026 which was rejected on 23.03.2026 by the Court of District Judge, Rampur and thereafter, another transfer application under Section 24 of the Code has been preferred.
5. Prayer in the present petition is for quashing of the interim injunction order dated 26.02.2026 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rampur in Original Suit No. 57 of 2026.
6. Learned Senior Counsel for the defendant-petitioners has submitted that it is a classic case of misuse of process of law particularly when once a Suit No. 216 of 2025 is pending at the instance of the defendant-petitioners and an appeal against the same is pending when there is no interim injunction order then in the circumstances without disclosing the factum of the Original Suit No. 216 of 2025, it would be travesity of justice in according interim protection in the present suit. Submission is that each and every attempt is being sought to be made just to linger on the disposal of the application under Order 39 Rule 4 read with Section 151 of the CPC as a duty is cast upon the concerned Court to dispose of the said application within a reasonable time.
7. I have heard the submission so made across the bar and perused the record.
8. Apparently, it is the claim of the defendant-petitioners the Suit No. 216 of 2025 came to be instituted in which on 14.08.2025 an injunction order has been passed against which a misc. appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff-respondents which is pending but there is no interim injunction order in that regard. The objection of the learned Senior Counsel for the defendant-petitioners is that the injunction order dated 26.02.2026 passed in Original Suit No. 57 of 2026 impugned in the present petition could not have been passed for more than one reason firstly, an application stood preferred by the defendant-petitioners on 26.02.2026 for according opportunity to set forth their stand and injunction order, if any, be passed after hearing them which was not done secondly, the plaint in Original Suit No. 57 of 2026 does not disclose the factum of pendency of Suit No. 216 of 2025 and existence of an injunction order dated 14.08.2025.
9. Be that as it may, once an application under Order 39 Rule 4 read with Section 151 CPC stands filed then it is to be decided might be on 07.03.2026, a transfer application came to be preferred which came to be rejected on 23.03.2026 and thereafter, another transfer application has been preferred. The defendant-petitioners have a right to file an application under Order 39 Rule 4 of the CPC against the ex parte injunction order and the Court is under obligation to decide the same either by allowing or rejecting so as to put the wheels on motion to enable the parties to avail the remedy as contemplated under law.
10. Since the objection under Order 39 Rule 4 read with Section 151 CPC itself pending, thus, in the fitness of the matter at this juncture, this Court directs the concerned Court, Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rampur in Original Suit No. 57 of 2026 to decide the proceedings under Order 39 Rule 4 read with Section 151 CPC dated 05.03.2026 without granting unnecessary adjournments and, in case, adjournments are granted in exceptional circumstances not beyond 10 days at a stretch subject to legal impediment, if any.
11. With the aforesaid observations, the petition stands disposed of.
(Vikas Budhwar,J.) April 7, 2026 Rajesh