Allahabad High Court
Smt. Kamla Shukla And Another vs Smt. Zarina Khan And 4 Others on 29 August, 2025
Author: Jaspreet Singh
Bench: Jaspreet Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:51288
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 5182 of 2025
Court No. - 7
HON'BLE JASPREET SINGH, J.
1. Heard Sri Amal Rastogi, learned counsel for the petitioners who made a mention at the time when the Court assembled in the morning that a petition has been filed in the registry of the Court yesterday i.e. 28.08.2025, however, since the matter involves execution of a decree wherein a warrant of possession has been issued, hence, it was prayed that the matter be taken up today.
2. Noticing the aforesaid urgency, the Court had permitted the matter to be taken up today at the time of call of case. Ms. Shivani Gupta has put in appearance on behalf of all the private respondents and has raised a preliminary objection regarding non-joinder of parties, inasmuch as, one person namely Vikalp Shukla who was a party to the proceedings before the Trial Court has not been impleaded as a party herein.
3. At this stage, counsel for the petitioners submits that he may be permitted to correct the array of parties during the course of the day.
4. Accordingly, the request as proposed by learned counsel for the petitioners to correct the array of parties is allowed and learned counsel for the petitioners is directed to correct and implead the necessary respondents as a party in memo of petition during the course of the day.
5. The petitioners before this Court are aggrieved by the order dated 04.08.2025 passed in 2 separate appeals bearing nos. 220 of 2018 and 221 of 2018 whereby an application seeking stay of the operation of the order passed by the Trial court was rejected.
6. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that a suit had been preferred by the present petitioners against the private respondents who were the defendants in the suit and in the same suit, the defendants have also filed a counter claim of possession against the present petitioners.
7. The said suit came to be decided by means of a judgment and decree dated 10.08.2018 whereby the suit of the present petitioners was dismissed and the counter claim preferred by the private respondents was decreed.
8. Being aggrieved, the petitioners preferred two regular civil appeals under Section 96 C.P.C. bearing RCA No. 220 and 221 of 2018 which are pending adjudication before the Additional District Judge, Court No. 18, Lucknow.
9. It is the case of the present petitioners that their application seeking stay of the execution proceedings was not being considered which prompted the petitioners to approach this Court in a petition Article 227 of the Constitution of India bearing No. 4430 of 2025 whereby the Coordinate Bench by means of order dated 28.07.2025 had permitted the present petitioners to move an appropriate application for grant of interim order in the pending regular civil appeals which was directed to be considered and decided by the First Appellate Court within a week from the date the order passed by the Coordinate Bench till the disposal of the said application or one week whichever was earlier, the execution was stayed.
10. Armed with the said order, the present petitioners moved an application before the First Appellate Court who after hearing the parties rejected the said application for interim relief by means of order dated 04.08.2025 passed in the two appeals and it has been informed that the appeal is fixed on 03.09.2025.
11. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that since a warrant of possession has been issued by the Executing Court unless adequate protection is granted, the purpose of the appeal itself shall stand frustrated itself when the appeal is fixed for hearing on 03.09.2025.
12. In the aforesaid circumstances, it has been prayed that an appropriate protection be granted till the time the appeal of the petitioners is finally decided on merits.
13. Ms. Shivani Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the respondents and Sri Sankalp Shukla who appears in person (private respondent no. 4) have submitted that the petitioners are delaying the disposal of the appeal and it is for the very same reason that the First Appellate Court rejected the application.
14. Having considered the aforesaid submissions and from the perusal of the material on record, this Court apparently finds that it will be in the ends of justice that the appeal can be decided on the date fixed.
15. Ms. Shivani Gupta has fairly submitted that they will not press the execution provided a date or time frame be fixed by the Court whereby the appeal can be decided on merits.
16. In view of the aforesaid consensus arrived at between the parties, this Court disposes of the petition with a direction to the First Appellate Court to consider and decide the appeal of the petitioners preferrably on the next date fixed and in case if the same is not possible then within a period of two weeks thereafter.
17. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners has informed that the Court wherein the aforesaid appeals are pending i.e. the Court of Additional District Judge, Court No. 18, Lucknow as fallen vacant and unless the appeals are transferred, it may not be feasible for disposal of the appeals on the next date i.e. 03.09.2025.
18. Considering the aforesaid, this Court directs the petitioners to move an appropriate application for transfer before the District Judge concerned by 02nd September, 2025 who shall taking note of the same, appropriately transfer the appeals to a court which is manned by a Presiding Officer. In case if the transfer can be done prior to 03.09.2025 then the appeals would be heard on the same date or else as provided in this order, the appeals would be decided by the transferee court also within a period of two weeks from the date of transfer order. No adjournment at the behest of petitioners will be entertained except in exceptional circumstances.
19. As far as the undertaking given by learned counsel for the respondents is concerned, it may be noticed that since the warrant of possession has been issued perhaps things are out of the hands of the respondents, hence, till the disposal of the appeal or for a period of two weeks from today whichever is earlier, the petitioners shall not be evicted from the property in question in furtherance of the order/judgment and decree of the Trial Court.
20. It is made clear that the Court has not examined the case of either of the parties on merits and the court concerned shall consider and decide the case strictly in accordance with law.
20. With the aforesaid observations, the petition shall stand disposed of.
August 29, 2025
Asheesh
