Allahabad High Court
YOGESH KUMAR AND 2 OTHERSversusSTATE OF UP AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL
Holding
The trial court exceeded its jurisdiction by granting final relief in an interim injunction application, necessitating a fresh determination by the trial court.
Summary
The petitioners filed a suit seeking a permanent injunction to protect their peaceful possession of a property, and also moved an application (6-C) for a temporary injunction, which the trial court allowed on 20‑04‑2024. The State appealed the interim order, and the appellate court upheld it, prompting the petitioners to file a writ petition under Article 227. The petitioners argued that the trial court had effectively granted final relief at the interim stage, exceeding its jurisdiction. The respondents contended that the trial court had essentially decreed the suit and that the appellate court correctly set aside the interim relief. The High Court held that the trial court indeed exceeded its jurisdiction by granting final relief in an interim application and set aside both the trial court’s order and the appellate court’s order. The matter was remanded to the trial court to reconsider the 6‑C application afresh, and the writ petition was disposed of.
Issues considered
- Did the trial court exceed its jurisdiction by granting final relief in an interim injunction application (6-C)?
- Was the appellate court correct in upholding the trial court's interim order?
Subjects
- injunction
- interim relief
- jurisdiction
- civil appeal
- Article 227
- temporary injunction
- trial court
- appellate court
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 13849 of 2026
Yogesh Kumar And 2 Others
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of Up And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Abhijeet Singh, Saurabh Raj Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Sunil Kumar Singh
Court No. - 9
HON'BLE ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL, J.
1. This is plaintiffs' petition. Suit was filed by plaintiffs seeking relief of permanent
injunction against defendants-respondents restraining them from interfering in their
peaceful possession over the property shown in the plaint map. An application 6-C
was moved for grant of temporary injunction against which defendants have filed their
objection. The said application was allowed by order dated 20.04.2024 against which
State has preferred a misc. civil appeal which has been allowed by order impugned.
2. Learned counsel for petitioner states that there is an admission on the part of
defendants that petitioners are tenure holders and injunction was rightly granted by
trial court.
3. Learned Standing Counsel has opposed the writ petition and submits that the trial
court had practically decreed the suit and final relief has been granted at interim stage
which has been set aside by appellate court.
4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the material on record, I
find that trial court had exceeded its jurisdiction by allowing the 6-C application
granting final relief to plaintiffs-petitioners at interim stage.
5. Looking to the facts of the case, the order dated 20.04.2024 and order impugned
dated 31.08.2026 are hereby set aside. The matter is remanded to trial court to decide
the application 6-C afresh keeping in mind that final relief cannot be granted at
interim stage, within a period of one month, from the date of production of certified
copy of this order.
6. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.
October 1, 2026//(V. S. SINGH)
(Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
VIDYA SAGAR SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…