Allahabad High Court
SMT. RAMWATIversusSHASHIKANT KUMAR MATHUR AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- MANISH KUMAR NIGAM
Holding
The stay order dated 19‑02‑2026 is set aside, and the District Judge is directed to decide the interim relief application and the appeal on merits.
Summary
The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the order dated 19‑02‑2026 of the District Judge, Etah, which stayed an interim injunction granted by the trial court on 13‑01‑2026. The petitioner contended that the stay was erroneous because the court had not examined the merits of the appeal and that the parties were no longer engaged in compromise negotiations. The High Court held that a stay of a status‑quo injunction cannot be granted merely on the prospect of compromise without merit consideration. Accordingly, the Court set aside the stay order to the extent it affected the injunction and directed the District Judge to decide the interim relief application and the appeal within twelve weeks, after giving notice to all respondents. The writ petition was thereafter disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether the stay of an interim injunction order can be granted on the ground of alleged compromise without considering the merits of the appeal
- Whether the District Judge erred in staying the trial court's injunction order
Subjects
- injunction
- stay order
- compromise
- interim relief
- Article 227
- appeal
- status quo
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 3409 of 2026
Smt. Ramwati
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
Shashikant Kumar Mathur And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Navin Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Ashok Kumar, Dheeraj Kumar Pandey,
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. Vakalatnama filed today by Shri Dheeraj Kumar Pandey, learned
counsel for respondent no.1 is taken on record.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
A227 No. 3409 of 2026
2
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
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.
6. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.
(Manish Kumar Nigam,J.)
March 18, 2026
Rishabh
Digitally signed by :-
RISHABH KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…