Allahabad High Court
RAHUL MITTALversusSMT MEETA GULATHI AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL
Holding
The High Court directed the subordinate civil court to decide the pending temporary injunction application within one month, without adjudicating the merits of the case.
Summary
The petitioner, Rahul Mittal, filed a writ petition under Article 227 seeking a direction to the Civil Judge (Senior Division) of Bulandshahr to decide a pending temporary injunction application (6‑C2) in Suit No. 24 of 2024. The petitioner argued that the injunction application had remained undecided for an unreasonable period, causing prejudice. The High Court, after noting the pendency and the lack of any substantive hearing, decided that the writ could be disposed at the admission stage without calling for a counter‑affidavit or notice to private respondents. The Court directed the lower court to hear all affected parties and decide the injunction application within one month of receiving a certified copy of the order, in accordance with law. It was expressly stated that the High Court did not adjudicate the merits of the underlying suit, and the writ petition was consequently disposed.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court can, 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
- writ petition
- civil procedure
- court direction
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 13803 of 2026
Rahul Mittal
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
Smt Meeta Gulathi And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Akhilesh, Shashank Kumar
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
(Senior Division)/Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No. 3,
Bulandshahr to decide the temporary injunction application 6-C2 filed in
Suit No. 24 of 2024 within a time frame fixed by this Court.
2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that 6-C2 application
filed in Civil Suit No. 24 of 2024 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 (Senior Division)/Additional Civil Judge (Senior
Division), Court No. 3, Bulandshahr to decide the temporary injunction
application (6-C2) filed in Suit No. 24 of 2024, 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.)
October 1, 2026
(V. S. SINGH)
Digitally signed by :-
VIDYA SAGAR SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…