Allahabad High Court
SHYAMVEER SINGHversusSRI AKASH YADAV ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL
Holding
A civil miscellaneous appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(r) CPC against an ad‑interim injunction is maintainable, as affirmed by the coordinate bench decision in Gurmej Singh v. Ranjit Kaur.
Summary
The petitioner filed a petition challenging the order of a civil miscellaneous appeal that had allowed an appeal against an ad‑interim injunction granted in a suit for a temporary injunction (6C2). The petitioner contended that such an appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of the CPC was not maintainable. The court examined the matter and held that the maintainability issue had already been settled by the coordinate bench in Gurmej Singh v. Ranjit Kaur (2020) 12 ADJ 561, confirming that the appeal was permissible. Consequently, the matter was remitted to the trial court to decide the 6C2 application afresh within one month, and the petition was disposed. The parties were directed to maintain the status quo until the trial court’s decision on the 6C2 application.
Issues considered
- Whether a civil miscellaneous appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of the CPC is maintainable against an ad‑interim injunction.
Legislation cited
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. Order 43 Rule 1(r)
Subjects
- injunction
- civil miscellaneous appeal
- maintainability
- Order 43
- CPC
- status quo
- temporary injunction
- appellate jurisdiction
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 13312 of 2026
Shyamveer Singh
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
Sri Akash Yadav Another
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Saurabh Tripathi, Sohit Prakash Sharma
Counsel for Respondent(s) :
Court No. - 9
HON'BLE ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL, J.
1. This is a plaintiff's petition. In the suit filed by the plaintiff, an application for grant
of temporary injunction 6C2 was moved, in which, an ad-interim injunction was
granted on 25.02.2026. Against which, the defendant-respondent has filed Civil Misc.
Appeal No. 21 of 2026 which has been allowed by the order impugned and the matter
has been remitted back to the trial court to decide the 6C2 application afresh.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that against the order granting ad-interim
injunction, civil misc. appeal was not maintainable.
3. After hearing the counsel for the petitioner and perusing the material on record, I
find that the issue in regard to the maintainability of civil misc. appeal under Order 43
Rule 1(r) CPC against an ad-interim injunction has already attained finality by the
judgment of the coordinate Bench of this Court rendered in the case of Gurmej Singh
and others vs. Ranjit Kaur and others 2020 (12) ADJ 561. As the matter has been
remitted back to the trial court to decide the 6C2 application, the court below is hereby
directed to proceed with the matter and decide the 6C application, positively, within a
period of one month from the date of production of certified copy of this order, after
hearing all the affected parties.
4. With the aforesaid directions, the petition stands disposed of.
5. Till the decision of 6C2 application, parties to maintain status quo.
September 23, 2026
A. V. Singh
(Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
AJAY VIKRAM SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…