Allahabad High Court
RANJIT SINGH AND 2 OTHERSversusDHIRENDRA KUMAR SHARMA AND 4 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- MANISH KUMAR NIGAM
Holding
The High Court disposed of the writ petition, directing the civil judge to decide the pending 6C application expeditiously within twelve weeks.
Summary
The petitioners filed a writ petition under Article 227 seeking a direction to the Civil Judge (J.D.) Prayagraj to decide a pending suit and an interim injunction application (6C) filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 of the CPC, and to maintain status quo until the decision. The petitioners argued that the 6C application had been pending since 2025 despite multiple dates being fixed. The Court observed that keeping the writ petition pending served no useful purpose. Consequently, the Court disposed of the petition, directing the civil judge to decide the 6C application expeditiously, preferably within twelve weeks of the certified copy of the order, ensuring service and hearing, and prohibiting unnecessary adjournments. The order also mandated maintenance of status quo on the spot until the decision.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court can direct a subordinate civil court to decide a pending interim injunction application within a stipulated time under its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227.
- Whether the writ petition seeking such direction is maintainable.
Legislation cited
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. Order XXXIX Rule 1
Subjects
- Article 227
- interim injunction
- Civil Procedure Code
- supervisory jurisdiction
- 6C application
- status quo
- civil court direction
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 3453 of 2026
Ranjit Singh And 2 Others
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
Dhirendra Kumar Sharma And 4 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Mahabir Yadav
Counsel for Respondent(s) :
Court No. - 5
HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR NIGAM, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record.
2. The instant writ petition has been filed for following relief:
" i-to direct the court concern Civil Judge (J.D.) Prayagraj to decide the Suit No.
3088 of 2025 (Ranjit Singh and others vs. Dhirendra Kumar Sharma and others) as
well as application 6c pending before Civil Judge (J.D.) Prayagraj within a stipulated
period as fixed by this Hon'ble Court and further direct the parties to maintain status
quo on spot till the decision of 6c application."
3. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that an application for
interim injunction under Order XXXIX Rule 1 of C.P.C. (6C Application) is pending
since 2025 and the same has not been decided despite several dates have been fixed.
He prayed that the same may be decided, expeditiously.
4. In view of above, no useful purpose would be served in keeping this petition
pending.
5. Accordingly, the present petition stands disposed of finally with a direction to the
Civil Judge (J.D.) Prayagraj to consider and decide the aforementioned interim
injunction application (6C Application), in accordance with law, expeditiously,
preferably within a period of twelve weeks from the date of production of a certified
copy of this order after ensuring service upon all the opposite parties, giving
opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned and without granting unnecessary
adjournments to either of the parties provided that there is no other legal impediment.
March 19, 2026
Nitika Sri.
(Manish Kumar Nigam,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
NITIKA SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…