Allahabad High Court

MAHESH KUMAR AND 2 OTHERSversusKHEMCHAND SHARMA

Decided: 7 September 2026
Bench: ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL

Holding

The trial court exceeded its jurisdiction by granting a substantive injunction at the interim stage, and the order is modified to maintain only a status‑quo until the suit is finally disposed.

Summary

The plaintiff filed a suit seeking a permanent injunction to prevent the defendants from interfering with his possession of a property. The trial court, on 5 September 2025, granted a temporary injunction restraining the defendants from any interference, including construction activities. The defendants appealed, but the appellate court dismissed the appeal, effectively confirming the trial court's order. On review, the High Court held that the trial court had exceeded its jurisdiction by granting substantive relief at the interim stage and modified the order to maintain only a status quo until the suit is finally decided. The court also directed that any application under Order XXXIX Rule 2‑A CPC be decided by the trial court within three months, and the writ petition was disposed.

Issues considered

Did the trial court have jurisdiction to grant a permanent injunction at the interim stage of the suit?
Was the appellate court correct in confirming the trial court's interim injunction?
What is the appropriate interim relief – a full injunction or merely a status‑quo order?
How should an application under Order XXXIX Rule 2‑A CPC be dealt with in this context?

Legislation cited

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

Subjects

injunction
status quo
jurisdiction
Article 227
civil appeal
property dispute
Order XXXIX Rule 2-A CPC

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 12243 of 2026

Mahesh Kumar And 2 Others
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus

Khemchand Sharma
.....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Rahul Sahai
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Rama Goel Bansal, Shalini Goel

Court No. - 9
HON'BLE ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL, J.

1. Heard Sri Rahul Sahai, learned counsel for the defendants-petitioners
and Ms. Rama Goel Bansal, learned counsel for plaintiff-respondent.

2. Plaintiff-respondent had filed a suit seeking relief for permanent
injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in his peaceful
possession. In the said suit, an application (Paper No.6-C) was moved for
grant of temporary injunction. The trial Court, on 05.09.2025, had
directed that the defendants shall not interfere in the suit property
mentioned in the plaint, and further they will not interfere in the
constructions raised by the plaintiff-respondent.

3. Aggrieved by the said order, defendants-petitioners had filed a Misc.
Civil Appeal No.93 of 2024 which has been dismissed by the order
impugned dated 15.05.2026.

4. Sri Rahul Sahai, learned counsel appearing for defendants-petitioners
submits that the suit has been practically decreed by the trial Court which
has been confirmed by the appellate Court. According to him, at the
interim stage, the trial Court could not have granted relief as claimed in
the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent. According to him, only an order
of status quo could have been passed by the Court concerned.

5. Ms. Rama Goel Bansal, learned counsel appearing for plaintiff-
respondent states that the disputes relates to only Rs.15 lakhs, which the
plaintiff is ready to pay to defendants, who has not accepted the same.
A227 No. 12243 of 2026
2

6. After hearing counsel for both the parties and perusing the material on
record, I find that the trial Court has exceeded its jurisdiction in
restraining the defendants-petitioners from interfering in peaceful
possession and also in the construction raised by the plaintiff-respondent.
The relief claimed in the suit has been granted at the interim stage by the
trial Court, which has been confirmed by the appellate Court.

7. In view of the said fact, injunction order dated 05.09.2025 is hereby
modified to the extent that the parties shall maintain status quo over the
property in dispute till the disposal of the suit.

8. It is further observed that in case any application under Order XXXIX
Rule 2-A CPC is filed by the plaintiff, the same shall be decided by the
trial Court within next three months, considering the fact that parties have
to maintain status quo over the property in dispute.

9. With the aforesaid observations, writ petition stands disposed of.

(Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.)
September 8, 2026
SK Goswami

Digitally signed by :-
SHIVAKANT GOSWAMI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…