Allahabad High Court
SMT RAMWATIversusHIMANSHU AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- MANISH KUMAR NIGAM
Holding
The stay order dated 19 February 2026 is set aside, and the District Judge is directed to decide the interim relief application and the appeal on merits.
Summary
The petitioner Smt Ramwati filed a writ petition under Article 227 challenging a stay order dated 19 February 2026 issued by the District Judge, Etah, which had stayed an interim injunction granted by the Trial Court on 13 January 2026. The petitioner argued that the stay was improperly granted without examining the merits of the appeal and that the parties were no longer in compromise, rendering the stay unjustified. The High Court examined whether a stay of a status‑quo injunction can be justified merely on the prospect of settlement and whether the lower court erred in staying the injunction without due consideration. It held that the stay order was erroneous and set it aside, directing the District Judge to decide the application for interim relief and the appeal within twelve weeks, after serving notice to all respondents. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of, with the interim injunction to remain in force pending the appeal’s adjudication.
Issues considered
- Whether a stay of an interim injunction can be granted without assessing the merits of the appeal.
- Whether the possibility of compromise between parties justifies staying a status‑quo order.
- Whether the High Court under Article 227 can set aside a stay order issued by a District Judge.
Subjects
- injunction
- stay order
- Article 227
- writ petition
- interim relief
- compromise
- district judge
- high court jurisdiction
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 3400 of 2026
Smt Ramwati
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
Himanshu And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Navin Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Tanmay Agrawal
Court No. - 5
HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR NIGAM, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Tanmay Agrawal,
learned counsel for respondents No.2 and 3 and perused the record.
2. This writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated
19.2.2026 passed by the District Judge, Etah. Appeal was filed by the
defendant-respondent against an order of injunction passed by the
Trial Court on 13.1.2026. In the appeal, an application was moved for
adjournment by the petitioner on the ground that talks of compromise
are going on and, therefore, the case may be adjourned. On the said
application 19.2.2026 and operation of order dated 3.1.2026 passed
by the Trial Court has been stayed.
3. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the
Court below have erroneously stayed the injunction order passed by
the Trial Court without considering merits of the appeal. It has also
been submitted that after this order, respondents have resiled from
any compromise. The order of status quo cannot be stayed on the
ground that there are chances of compromise between the parties.
4. Accordingly, the order dated 19.2.2026 passed by the District
Judge, Etah, is hereby set aside to the extent staying the order
passed on the interim injunction application passed by the Trial Court.
The District Judge, Etah is directed to consider and decide
the.application for interim relief, if any, filed in the appeal as well as
the appeal, in accordance with law, expeditiously, preferably within
twelve weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this
A227 No. 3400 of 2026
2
order, after ensuring service of notice upon all the respondents and
providing opportunity of hearing to all the concerned parties provided
there is no other legal impediment.
5. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.
March 18, 2026
Rishabh
(Manish Kumar Nigam,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
RISHABH KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…