Ram Machal And 3 Others vs Shiv Kumari And 14 Others on 12 May, 2026





HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


Neutral Citation No. - 2026:AHC:109564
 

 
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD 
 
MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 5822 of 2026   
 
   Ram Machal And 3 Others    
 
  .....Petitioner(s)   
 
 Versus  
 
   Shiv Kumari And 14 Others    
 
  .....Respondent(s)       
 
   
 
  
 
Counsel for Petitioner(s)   
 
:   
 
Ashok Kumar Pandey, Rajesh Kumar   
 
  
 
Counsel for Respondent(s)   
 
:   
 
 Vinod Mishra, Mathura Prasad Mishra   
 
     
 
 Court No. - 5
 
   
 
 HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J.

1. Vakalatnama has been filed on behalf of Shri Gulab Chandra Tiwari(A/G 0168/2012), counsel for respondent nos. 4 to 15, is taken on record.

2. Heard Sri Rajesh Kumar along with Sri Ashok Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vinod Mishra, learned counsel, who appears for plaintiff-respondents and Shri Gulab Chandra Tiwari, counsel for respondent nos. 4 to 15. 3. The counsel for the rival parties have made a joint statement that they do not propose to file any further affidavits thus with the consent of the parties, petition is being decided at the fresh stage.

4. The case of the defendant-petitioners is that the plaintiff-respondents who are 3 in number instituted a original suit No. 520/2023 (Shiv Kumari Vs. Ram Machal) before the court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jaunpur seeking a permanent decree restraining the defendants therein from forcefully encroaching and upon the demise property which was detailed as A, B, C, D etc. The said suit came to be instituted in the month of April, 2023 i.e. 12/15.04.2023 along with the said suit, an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC also came to be filed and thereafter an amendment application was also preferred which came to be allowed on 07.03.2025 on the ground that an allegation that on 09.04.2023, the defendant-petitioners who were defendants in the suit forcefully encroached upon the property in question and threatened to demolish the articles so prevalent therein. The temporary injunction application along with objections so preferred came to be decided on 28.05.2025 by the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jaunpur in O.S. No. 520 of 2023 while rejecting the temporary injunction application against which a miscellaneous civil appeal came to be preferred by the plaintiff-respondents bearing no. 07 of 2026 which came to be allowed on 30.03.2026 by the Court of District Judge, Jaunpur.

5. Questioning the order dated 30.03.2026 passed by the appellate court, the present petition has been preferred.

6. Learned counsel for the defendant-petitioners has sought to argue that the appellate court had committed a patent error apparent on the face of the law in granting injunction, particularly, when the trial court had already denuded itself from according interim junction to the plaintiff-respondents on the ground that the defendant-petitioners happened to be tenant in the rooms whose ownership was being claimed by the plaintiff-respondents. According to him, though the suit came to be instituted on 12/15.04.2023 but an amendment application came to be filed which was allowed on 07.03.2025 with an allegation that on 09.04.2023, the defendant-petitioner had barged into the premises, thus, according to him, the amendment would relate back to the date of the institution of the suit and, thus, what would be relevant is that it is an admission on the part of the plaintiff-respondents that defendant-petitioners were already in possession, thus, the injunction order could not have been passed.

7. Countering the said submissions, Sri Mishra and Sri Tiwari who appears for the respective respondents submits that a new theory has been implanted by the trial court by the defendant-petitioners that they are tenants as from the record so produced by the plaintiff-respondents, their names find place in the revenue records and they are the owners.

8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records carefully.

9. Plainly and simply, the bone of contention between the parties is whether the appellate court was justified in granting injunction or not, on the face of the fact that the trial court had rejected the temporary injunction. The court is mindful of the fact and the legal position that temporary injunction is only to be granted once there is a prima facie case, irreparable loss and balance of convenience and temporary injunction cannot be granted to dislodge a a party who is already in possession and that will amount to a final relief by way of a decree, here there are certain redeeming features that is with regard to the fact that the trial court while rejecting the injunction application had come to the conclusion that the plaintiff-respondents have not approached the Court with clean hands, particularly, when they had admitted that the defendant-petitioners are tenants. However, on the converse, the counsel for the plaintiff-respondents submits that on 09.04.2023, the defendant- petitioners barged into the premises.

10. Interestingly, the suit came to be instituted on 12/15.04.2023 and the amendment so made in para-7 which came to be allowed on 09.04.2023 talks about forceful possession by the defendant-petitioners i.e. a event prior to the institution of the suit. The appellate court had injuncted the defendant-petitioners from taking possession of the land in question. The relevant finding recorded by the trial court is quoted hereinunder:

"??????? ???? ?????????? ?? ?? ?????? ?? ?? ?????????? ?? ???? ?? ??? ?????? ?? ??? ???????? ?? ????? ?????? ????? ?? ??? ?????? ??? ???? ?????? ??????? ?? ????? ??? ???? ???????? ???? ???? ???? ??? ??? ?? ???????? ?? ????? ?????? ????? ?? ???? ??? ?? ?? ?? ?????? ??? ???? ?? ?????????? ?? ?????? ??????? ???? ?? ?????? ???? ??? ???????? ?????? ??? ??????????? ?? ?????? ? ??????? ???? ? ????? ??? ???????? ?? ??? ??? ???????? ?? ??? ?????? 33? ?? ?? ?????? ?? ?? ????????? ??????? ????? 2 ????? ?? ??????????? ?? ??????? ??? ???? ?????? ???? ?????? ?? ?????? ???? ??????? ??? ????????????? 6? ??? ???? ???? ??? ???

??????? ??????? ?? ???????? ???? ?? ???? ??? ?????? ?????????? ???? ???? ???? ????????? ?????? ???? ???? ??? ??? ??????? ???? ?????????? ??? ???? ??? ???????????? ?? ???????? ???????? ?? ?? ??? ????? ??????? ?????? ???? ?? ???? ??? ???? ???"

11. The appellate court has recording findings which reads as under:

"???? ?????? ???????????? ?????? ?????? ???? ?????? 24? ??? ???????? 22? ??? ?? ??? ???? ??? ?? ?? ????? ????? ?????? ???? ?, ??, ??, ?? ????????? ????? ??????? ???? ?? ???? ????? ?? ?? ???? ?? ?? ????? ???? ??? ??????? ????? ?? ?????? ??????????? 1 ?? 4 ?? ?????? ???? ?? ?? ??????? ????? ??? ?? ?????? ?????? ??? ?? ?? ?? ??????????? ?? ???? ??? ????? ??? ???? ??????? ?? ???? ?? ?????? 2 ? 3 ?? ???? ???? ?????????, ????????? ?????? ?????? 1 ?? ??? ???? ????????? ? ????????? ?????? 1 ?? ???? ???? ???????? ? ?? ??????????? 2 ?? 4 ?? ???? ???? ???????? ?? ???? ? ????? ????? ?? ????? ???????? ?? ??? ????? ??????? ?? ????? ???? ???? ??? 25,000/- ????? ??????? ????? ? ???? ?????? ?? ???? ????? ?? ????? ?? ???? ?? ??? ????? ?? ???? ?? ???????? ????? ?? ???? ?? ??? ????? ???? ???? ??????? ???????? ??? ??????? ? ???? ?????? ???? ??? 1997 ??? ????? ???? ??????? ????? ????? ??? ? ??? ?? ?? ?? ???? ?? ????? ???? ?? ?? ??????? ????? ? ???? ??? ??? 2007 ??? ?????? ?????? ????? ?? ??????? ???? ????? ?????? ????? ???

??????? ?? ???????? ?? ???? ??? ???????? ?? ?????? ????????? ??????? ?? ?????? ?? ?????? ?? ?? ???????? ?? ?????? ???? ?????? 10? ????? ??? ??????? ???????? 424 ?? ??????????? ?? ??? ???? ??? ??????? ?????? ?????? ???? ?????? 10? ?????, ???? ?????? 11? ???? ??? ??????? ???????? ?? ???????????/?????? ?? ??? ???? ??? ??????????? / ???????????? ?????? 1 ?? 4 ?????? ???????? ???????? ?????? 21.01.1997 ?? ???????? ???????? ?? ???????? ?? ????? ?? ??? ??, ????? ???? ?? ??????? ???????? ??? ??????????? ?????? 1 ?? 4 ?? ?????? ??? ??? ???? ?????????? ???? ???? ?? ???? ??? ??????????? / ???????????? ?????? 1 ?? 4 ?????? ???????? ??? ???? ??? ??? ?? ???? ????? ?? ???? ?? ????????????? / ???????????? ?????? 1 ?? 4 ?????? ??? 1997 ??? ???? ????? ?? ?? ??????? ????? ????? ?? ??? ??? ???? ??????? ??? ???? ??? 2007 ??? ????? ?? ??????? ???? ????? ?????? ????? ?? ??????? ?????? ???? ??, ??????? ??????????? ?????? 1997 ??? ???? ????? ???? 10 ??? ??? ????? ?? ??????? ???? ??? ??? ??, ?? ?? ????????? ??, ??????? ??? ?? ??????? 10 ??? ?? ???? ????? ?? ???? ?? ???? ??? ?? ????? ??? ?????? ???? ???? ?????? 30? ?? ???? 27 ??? ?????? ?????? ?? ??? ???? ??? ?? ?? ??????????? ?????? ????? ????????? ????, ?????, ?????? ??? ??????? ?? ??? ???????? ?? ????? ???? ?? ??????? ??? ???? ????, ????? ??? ?????? ? ??????? ???????? ?? ??? ?? ??????? ????? ??? ??????????? ???? ?? ? ???? ???? ?? ?? ? ?? ??? ???? ??? ???????? ???? ?? ?????? ??????????? ?? ????? ????? 425 ?? ?????? ??????????? ?? ???? ????? ?? ?? ???? ??????? ??????? ????? ?? ??? ?????? ????? ???? ????? ?????? 425 ?? ??, ??? ????? ????? ?? ??????????? ?????? 1 ?? 4 ?? ?????? ??????? ???? ?? ???? ??? ?? ??? ???

??????? ???? ???????? ??? ?? ?????? ???? ??? ?? ?? ?????? ?????????? ?? ?????? ???? ?? ???? ?? ???? ??? ?? '??? ??????? ???? ???? ???? ???? ??? ?????? ?? ??? ?????? ???????? ?????, ???? ??? ??????? ???????? ????? ?????? 424 ???? 0.0360 ??0 ??? ???? ?? ????? ?? ?????? ?? ?? ????? ?????? 424 ???? 0. 0360??0 ?? ????? ????? ???????????/?????? ????

??? ???????? ?????? ?????? ?? ????????????? 6? ?? ???? ?? ?????? ???? ??? ?? ?? ?????? ?????? ??????? ??? ?? ???? ?????? ??? ?? ?? ??????????? ????????? ???????? ??? ????? ???? ? ????? ?? ????????? ?? ??? ??? ???????? ??? ??? ??? ?? ??????? ?? ???? ??? ?? ?????? ???? ??? ???

??? ???????? ?? ??????? ??????? Perverse and unconscionable ??? ???????? ?? ?????? ????????? ?? ?????? ??, ??????? ??????????? ?? ???? ??? ??????????? ?????? ???? ???? ??? ???? ??? ?? ????? ?????? ?????? ?? ???? ???? ???????? ???? ??? ?????? ?????? ???? ???? ?? ????? ?????? ???? ??? ???? ???? ????, ????? ??? ?????? ??? ??? ??? ?? ?????? ??? ???????? ?? ?????? ???? ?????? 28.05.2025 Perverse / ????? ???????? ?? ?????? ??, ?????? ????????? ?? ???????? ???"

12. Confronted with the said situation, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that the arguments so sought to be raised on the basis of the documents available on record had not been adverted too, thus, the writ petition is being decided in the following manner:

(a). The impugned order dated 30.03.2026 passed by the District Judge, Jaunpur in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 07 of 2026 is set aside.

(b). The matter stands remitted back to the appellate forum to pass fresh order strictly in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of presentation of the certified copy of the order.

13. The status of the defendant-petitioners as of today shall be maintained and the same shall be subject to the final order to be passed therein.

14. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of.

(Vikas Budhwar,J.)

May 12, 2026

Ashu