Allahabad High Court
RAJENDRA SINGH AND 2 OTHERSversusAJAY SINGH AND 4 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL
Holding
The High Court, exercising its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227, refrained from adjudicating the merits and directed the lower court to decide the pending application for temporary injunction within a month.
Summary
The petitioners, who are defendants in a civil suit, filed a writ petition under Article 227 challenging the dismissal of their civil revision against an order dated 27‑8‑2026. The lower court had earlier granted an ad interim injunction (application 6‑C) in the original suit and the petitioners sought police action under Section 151 CPC, which was opposed by the defendants. The High Court noted that the application for a temporary injunction remains pending and that the defendants have already filed objections. Exercising its supervisory jurisdiction, the Court declined to decide the merits and instead directed the lower court to hear all parties and dispose of the pending injunction application within one month of receiving the certified copy of the order. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of without any substantive adjudication on the merits.
Issues considered
- What is the appropriate scope of the High Court's supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 in a writ petition challenging a civil revision order?
- Whether the High Court should intervene in the merits of the pending application for temporary injunction (application 6‑C) in the original suit.
Legislation cited
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. 151
- Constitution of India — s. Article 227
Subjects
- Article 227
- temporary injunction
- Civil Procedure Code
- Section 151 CPC
- civil revision
- writ petition
- supervisory jurisdiction
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 12546 of 2026
Rajendra Singh And 2 Others
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
Ajay Singh And 4 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Radhey Shyam Maurya
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Bhim Sen Pandey, Dev Raj Purshottam
Court No. - 9
HON'BLE ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL, J.
1. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.
2. This is the defendants' petition. In the suit filed by plaintiff respondents
an application 6-C was moved for grant of temporary injunction in which
an ad interim injunction was granted on 6.12.2025 and notices were
issued to the defendants. It appears that the defendants were interfering in
the matter, as such, another application 16-C under Section 151 CPC was
moved by the plaintiffs for police action, against which objections were
filed by the defendants in which an order on 27.8.2026 was passed.
Aggrieved by the said order, defendant petitioners had preferred civil
revision which has been dismissed by the order impugned.
3. I have heard respective counsel for parties and perused the material on
record. It is an admitted case that application for grant of temporary
injunction 6-C is still pending consideration and only an ad interim
injunction has been granted by the court below, the defendants have
appeared in the matter and already filed their objections.
4. In view of the said fact, present writ petition is being disposed of, with
a direction upon the Court below to decide 6-C application filed in
Original Suit No. 424 of 2025, in accordance with law, after hearing all
affected parties and considering the objections filed against 6-C
application by the defendants, preferably within a period of one month
from the date of production of certified copy of this order.
5. With the aforesaid directions, writ petition stands disposed of.
A227 No. 12546 of 2026
2
6. It is made clear that this Court has not adjudicated the matter on merits.
(Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.)
September 18, 2026
Shekhar
Digitally signed by :-
SHASHI SHEKHAR PANDEY
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…