Smt. Anisha Begum vs Riyaz Khan And 15 Others
2026 Latest Caselaw 632 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Smt. Anisha Begum vs Riyaz Khan And 15 Others on 1 April, 2026

Author: Jaspreet Singh

Bench: Jaspreet Singh

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 


Neutral Citation No. - 2026:AHC-LKO:22903
 

 
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
LUCKNOW 
 
MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 1470 of 2026   
 
   Smt. Anisha Begum    
 
  .....Petitioner(s)   
 
 Versus  
 
   Riyaz Khan And 15 Others    
 
  .....Respondent(s)       
 
   
 
  
 
Counsel for Petitioner(s)   
 
:   
 
Yogesh Kesarwani, Bhanu Pratap Singh Chauhan, Dharmendra Kumar Bhatt   
 
  
 
Counsel for Respondent(s)   
 
:   
 
  
 
   
 
     
 
 Court No. - 8
 
   
 
 HON'BLE JASPREET SINGH, J.       

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. In view of the order proposed to be passed by this Court, notice to the private-respondent is dispensed with.

3. The petitioner has approached this Court with limited prayer that though he has filed regular first appeal under Section 96 CPC which is engaging the attention of the District Judge, Sultanpur, which after hearing the present petitioner, who is the appellant and the respondent in caveat and admitted the appeal, but it differed the hearing on the application for interim injunction/stay, wherein the next date fixed is 06.04.2026.

4. It is further stated that in the meantime as the private-respondents have already appeared on caveat, hence taking advantage of the order passed by the first appellate Court they have increased their pace for raising construction.

5. Be that as it may, since the appeal of the petitioner is already admitted vide order dated 06.03.2026, a copy of which has been placed on record as Annexure No.8 and the matter is listed before the first appellate Court on 06.04.2026, this Court is not inclined to entertain the petition at this stage, however, leaving it open for the petitioner to press his application for interim injunction on the date fixed. Needless to say, that the law is now well settled by the Apex Court in Mool Chand Yadav and another v. Raza Buland Sugar Company Limited, Rampur and others, (1982) 3 SCC 484, and the first appellate Court, who is seized with the matter shall consider and decide the application for injunction, after affording full opportunity of hearing to the parties, but without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties preferably on the next date fixed. In case, if the same is not possible, the same shall be considered and decided within ten days thereafter.

6. It is made clear that the Court has not examined the case of either of the parties on merits and the first appellate Court concerned shall consider and decide the injunction application of the petitioner strictly in accordance with law.

7. With the aforesaid, the petition is disposed of.

(Jaspreet Singh,J.)

April 1, 2026

Rakesh/-