Allahabad High Court
OM PRAKASH PANDEYversusVED PRAKASH PANDEY AND 2 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL
Holding
The High Court exercised its supervisory jurisdiction to direct the subordinate court to decide the pending temporary injunction application within one month, without deciding the merits of the suit.
Summary
The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 227 seeking a direction to the Civil Judge (Junior Division) East, Ballia to decide a pending temporary injunction application (Form 6‑C) in Suit No. 849 of 2025. The petitioner argued that the injunction application had remained undecided for an unreasonable period, causing prejudice. The Court observed that keeping the matter pending served no useful purpose and that a prompt decision was warranted. Consequently, the Court disposed of the writ petition at the admission stage, without calling for a counter‑affidavit or issuing notice to private respondents. It directed the lower court to decide the injunction application within one month of receiving a certified copy of the order, after hearing all affected parties, and clarified that it had not adjudicated the merits of the underlying suit.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court can, under its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227, direct a subordinate civil court to decide a pending temporary injunction application within a specified time frame?
Subjects
- Article 227
- temporary injunction
- injunction application
- civil procedure
- supervisory jurisdiction
- direction to lower court
- pending application
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 11881 of 2026
Om Prakash Pandey
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
Ved Prakash Pandey And 2 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Niraj Kumar Dwivedi, Satish Mishra
Counsel for Respondent(s) :
Court No. - 9
HON'BLE ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL, J.
1. This writ petition has been filed seeking direction upon Civil Judge
(Junior Division) East, Ballia to decide the temporary injunction application
6-C filed in Suit No. 849 of 2025 within a time frame fixed by this Court.
2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that 6-C application
filed by petitioner in Civil Suit No. 849 of 2025 is pending consideration and
till date the same has not been decided by the court concerned.
3. As no useful purpose would be served in keeping the matter pending, the
writ petition is being disposed of, at the admission stage, without calling for
counter affidavit or issuing notice to private respondents, with a direction
upon Civil Judge (Junior Division) East, Ballia to decide the temporary
injunction application (6-C) filed in Suit No. 849 of 2025, in accordance
with law, after hearing all affected parties, preferably within a period of one
month from the date of production of certified copy of this order.
4. With the aforesaid directions, writ petition stands disposed of.
5. It is made clear that this Court has not adjudicated the matter on merits.
(Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.)
September 9, 2026
(V. S. SINGH)
Digitally signed by :-
VIDYA SAGAR SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…