Dilip Singh vs Nitesh @ Rakesh And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 28117 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:195648
 
Court No. - 1
 

 
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 8399 of 2023
 

 
Petitioner :- Dilip Singh
 
Respondent :- Nitesh @ Rakesh And Another
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Indra Jit Singh,Sr. Advocate
 

 
Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J.

1. Heard Shri O.P. Singh, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Shri Indrajit Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. This petition has been filed seeking to set aside the order dated 22.10.2019 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No. 1, Kanpur Nagar in Original Suit No. 1268 of 2019 (Nitesh and another Vs. Dilip Singh and others), whereby, the application 6C2 filed by the plaintiff-respondents has been allowed and the parties have been directed to maintain status quo with regard to the possession and construction on the suit property. Further relief has been sought to assail the order dated 17.5.2023 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 14, Kanpur Nagar in Misc. Appeal No. 100 of 2019 (Dilip Singh and another Vs. Nitesh and another), whereby, the appeal filed by the petitioner and another, namely, Ram Avatar, has been dismissed and the order of the trial court dated 22.10.2019 has been affirmed.

3. It appears that the plaintiff-respondent instituted a suit seeking permanent injunction with regard to the suit property. A perusal of the order impugned dated 22.10.2019 reveals that the plaintiffs had set up their claim on the basis of registered documents dated 3.9.1993 and 18.8.1993 and the defendants had set up their claim with regard to the suit property on the basis of registered documents.

4. The trial court, prima facie, found that the deeds transferring the land in favour of the petitioners was a valid document and that the title deeds to the immovable property set up by the defendant-petitioner was, prima facie, without consideration. Accordingly, assessing the prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury, the trial court allowed the application 6C2 and directed the parties to maintain status quo. The appellate court also went through the record of the case and has passed a judgment and found that there was no error or irregularity in the order dated 22.10.2019.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to demonstrate any illegality or error in the orders impugned that may warrant interference in this petition. As a matter of fact, given the facts and circumstances, on a prima facie basis it has been noticed by the courts that the order of status quo would protect the interest of the parties.

6. This petition is, therefore, dismissed.

Order Date :- 11.10.2023

A. V. Singh

(Jayant Banerji, J.)