Mohd Zafar vs Smt. Anisa Begum And 5 Others
2026 Latest Caselaw 339 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Mohd Zafar vs Smt. Anisa Begum And 5 Others on 10 March, 2026

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


Neutral Citation No. - 2026:AHC:48096
 

 
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD 
 
MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 2962 of 2026   
 
   Mohd Zafar    
 
  .....Petitioner(s)   
 
 Versus  
 
   Smt. Anisa Begum And 5 Others    
 
  .....Respondent(s)       
 
   
 
  
 
Counsel for Petitioner(s)   
 
:   
 
Sheikh Moazzam Inam, Suresh Chandra Dwivedi   
 
  
 
Counsel for Respondent(s)   
 
:   
 
 
 
   
 
     
 
 Court No. - 5
 
   
 
 HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR NIGAM, J.      

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

2. This petition has been filed for the following relief:

"(i) To issue order or direction to restrain the execution court to not proceed the execution proceeding in Execution Case No. 6 of 2021 (Anisa and Others Vs Mohd. Zafar) pending before the Civil Judge (J.D)/F.T.C Plibhit.

(ii) To issue an order and direct to Civil Judge (J.D)/F.T.C Plibhit to decide the objection filed by the petitioner/defendant bearing paper no. 15 (Ga), and which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."

3. Brief facts of the case are that a suit was filed by the present petitioner for injunction and another suit was filed by the defendant for declaration as well as injunction. The suit filed by the petitioner was decreed and the suit filed by the defendant was dismissed. Against both the decrees, two appeals were filed and both the appeals were allowed. The suit filed by the petitioner was dismissed and the suit filed by the defendant was decreed. Against both these appellate decrees, the petitioner preferred two separate appeals.

4. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that during pendency of the second appeal before this Court, the executing court should not proceed with the execution.

5. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is wholly misconceived. Since the second appeal against decree is pending before this Court, the proper remedy for the petitioner to move an application for interim injunction in the appeal itself and not by filing application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

6. The petitioner may move appropriate application in the pending second appeal before the second appellate court for redressal of his grievance.

7. With the aforesaid observation, this petition stands disposed of.

(Manish Kumar Nigam,J.)

March 10, 2026

Ved Prakash