[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Allahabad High Court
Siddharth Singh And Another vs Praveen Sharma on 2 April, 2026
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2026:AHC:73582
.HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 4172 of 2026
Siddharth Singh And Another
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
Praveen Sharma
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)
:
Pankaj Agarwal
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
Tanisha Jahangir Monir
Court No. - 5
HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J.
1. The matter has been heard in the presence of Sri Pankaj Agarwal, learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner and Sri Ashish Singh, learned counsel assisted by Ms. Tanisha Jahangir Monir, appearing for the plaintiff-respondent.
2. A joint statement has been made by the learned counsel for the parties that they do not propose to file any further affidavits and that the petition may be decided finally on the basis of the documentary evidence already available on record. With the consent of the parties, the petition is being decided at the admission stage.
3. The case of the defendant-petitioner is that Original Suit No. 891 of 2024 (Praveen Sharma vs. Siddarth Singh and others), pending before the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Aligarh, has been instituted by the plaintiff-respondent seeking a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendant, his agents, servants, associates and attorneys from interfering in the peaceful possession, use, and enjoyment of the property in dispute, as well as from causing obstruction in the construction being raised by the plaintiff. Along with the suit, an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC was filed, which came to be allowed on 28.11.2024, whereby an injunction order was passed restraining the defendant-petitioner from interfering in the possession of the plaintiff.
4. The defendant-petitioner, upon gaining knowledge of the ex-parte injunction order, filed objections on 13.12.2024 (annexed at page 63 of the paper book), wherein it was specifically asserted, inter alia, in paragraph 6 (page 66), that the plaintiff was attempting to encroach upon a common passage by including it within the suit property. It is contended that in view of the provisions of Order XXXIX Rule 3A CPC, the said objections ought to have been decided within thirty days; however, the same were not decided within the stipulated period.
5. Subsequently, on 15.10.2025, while disposing of Application Nos. 71-C2, 81-C2 and Objection No. 79-C2, the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Aligarh, directed the police authorities to ensure implementation of the injunction order dated 28.11.2024 and, in the meantime, also restrained both parties from raising construction. Thereafter, on 04.11.2025, the plaintiff-respondent moved an application seeking correction of the order dated 15.10.2025 on the ground that the direction restraining the plaintiff from raising construction was never part of the original injunction order dated 28.11.2024. The said correction application was allowed on 27.02.2026 by the court concerned.
6. Aggrieved by the order dated 27.02.2026, the present petition has been preferred.
7. Learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner submits that while allowing the correction application, the trial court has virtually adjudicated issues akin to a title dispute, which was impermissible at such stage. It is further submitted that the order has the effect of expanding the scope of the injunction and permitting encroachment over land not forming part of the suit property. It is also contended that in the interest of justice, the operation of the order dated 15.10.2025 ought to have been maintained, particularly in view of the possibility that, in the event of dismissal of the suit or rejection of the plaint, complications may arise.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent submits that the order dated 27.02.2026 merely rectifies an apparent error in the order dated 15.10.2025, whereby a restriction not originally granted under the injunction order dated 28.11.2024 had been inadvertently incorporated. It is further submitted that the order dated 15.10.2025 was never challenged by the defendant-petitioner at the appropriate stage, however, it is fairly submitted that the objections filed by the defendant-petitioner against the injunction order dated 28.11.2024 be directed to be decided expeditiously, and the plaintiff shall not seek unnecessary adjournments in that regard.
9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
10. Apparently, a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction was instituted by the plaintiff-respondent, and an injunction order came to be passed on 28.11.2024. Thereafter, on 13.12.2024, objections were filed by the defendant-petitioner. It is the case of the defendant-petitioner that in view of the provisions contained under Order XXXIX Rule 3-A CPC, the said objections ought to have been decided within a period of thirty days; however, the same remained pending.
11. Subsequently, on 15.10.2025, an order came to be passed by the learned trial court whereby, apart from directing the police authorities to ensure implementation of the injunction order, an additional direction was also issued restraining the plaintiff-respondent from raising construction. On a correction application preferred by the plaintiff-respondent, the said direction, insofar as it restrained the plaintiff from raising construction, was deleted.
12. In the opinion of this Court, once an ex-parte injunction order has been passed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC and objections thereto have been filed, the same are required to be decided expeditiously, preferably within the period stipulated under Order XXXIX Rule 3-A CPC. The very object of the said provision is to ensure that objections to an ex-parte injunction are not kept pending for an indefinite period.
13. In the present case, it is alleged by the defendant-petitioner that construction activities are being carried out, which may alter the nature of the property and give rise to further complications, particularly with regard to the alleged encroachment over a common passage.
14. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, and also in view of the statement made by Sri Ashish Singh, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Ms. Tanisha Jahangir Monir on instructions from the plaintiff-respondent that no unnecessary adjournment shall be sought, it is directed that the learned trial court shall make all endeavour to decide the objections filed by the defendant-petitioner on the next date fixed. In the event the objections are not decided on the next date for reasons beyond control, the learned trial court shall fix a short date and proceed to decide the same expeditiously, preferably within a further period not exceeding ten days.
15. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the petition is disposed of.
(Vikas Budhwar,J.)
April 2, 2026
Sushma
