Allahabad High Court

MUKESHA DEVIversusRAJENDRA AND 9 OTHERS

Decided: 6 May 2026
Bench: VIKAS BUDHWAR

Holding

The High Court held that the trial court was correct in declining to order an Amin report at that stage and that no prejudice was caused, thereby dismissing the writ petition.

Summary

The petitioner, Mukesha Devi, claimed ownership of a 41.85 sq. meter plot in Kasganj district, alleging that the respondents were obstructing her possession after she purchased the land by a registered sale deed dated 08-12-2023. She obtained a temporary injunction from the Civil Judge, Senior Division, and subsequently applied for an Amin report to investigate the alleged obstructions, but the trial court rejected the application on 10-02-2026, warning that the interim protection would be vacated if no further arguments were made. The petitioner challenged this order through a writ petition under Article 227, contending that the Amin report was essential to resolve the dispute and that the trial court had acted hastily. The High Court examined the submissions and the record, concluding that the trial court was within its discretion to defer the Amin report until the issues were framed, and that no prejudice was caused to the petitioner. Consequently, the High Court declined to interfere with the trial court’s order and disposed of the writ petition.

Issues considered

Whether the trial court erred in refusing to order an Amin report at the stage of framing issues in the injunction proceedings.
Whether the petitioner’s right to interim relief was prejudiced by the non‑issuance of the Amin report.

Subjects

property dispute
injunction
Amin report
Civil Procedure Code
Article 227
interim relief
trial court discretion

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 3838 of 2026

Mukesha Devi
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus

Rajendra And 9 Others
.....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Anoop Kumar Mishra
Counsel for Respondent(s) :

Court No. - 5
HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J.

1. Heard Sri Anoop Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the plaintiff-
petitioner.

2. In view of the order, which is being proposed to be passed today, notices
are not being issued to the defendant-respondents.

3. The case of the plaintiff-petitioner that he claims to be an owner and
possession-holder of the land being part of Gata no. 1 area about 41.85 sq.
meter (15x30) situated at village/Mauja- Subhash Nagar, Kasba-Sidhpura,
Pargana Sidhpura, Tehsil- Patiyali, District- Kasganj, which the plaintiff-
petitioner claims to have purchased by virtue of a registered sale-deed dated
08-12-2023. Since according to the plaintiff-petitioner, obstructions and
interference were sought to be made by the defendant-respondents so the
plaintiff-petitioner instituted O.S. No.89 of 2025, Mukesha Devi vs.
Rajendra and others before the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) Kasganj
seeking a permanent injunction. Along with the same, an application under
Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 also came to be preferred and according to the
plaintiff-petitioner, an injunction order came to be passed of status quo on
06.11.2025. However, an application came to be preferred by the plaintiff-
petitioner being Paper No. 48C2 for getting an Amin report, as according to
him, Amin report is necessary, particularly when obstructions were being
created and claim was being set up by the defendant-respondent. The said
application on contest came to be rejected by virtue of the order dated
10.02.2026 with a further observation that in case arguments are not being
advanced on the next date, the interim protection shall stand vacated.

4. Questioning the said order, the present petition has been preferred.
A227 No. 3838 of 2026
2

5. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner has sought to argue that the
order impugned cannot be sustained for the simple reason that Amin Report
was necessary, as in case Amin Report was taken into account post
inspection of the site, then the entire controversy would have been cleared,
particularly when claim has been set up by the defendant-respondent.
Further submission is that in a cursory manner, without looking into the
aspects of the matter, the order impugned has been passed. It is further
contended that so far as the observations so made in the order impugned that
the stay shall stand vacated on the next date in case arguments have not been
advanced, now, the said grievance is no more required to be redressed,
particularly when in a revision proceeding, the interim injunction stands
continued.

6. I have heard the submissions so advanced across the Bar and perused the
records carefully.

7. Plainly and simply, the bone of contention is that whether the Amin
Report was necessary or not. As a matter of fact, the Trial Court after
evaluating the entire aspect of the matter has come to the conclusion that at
the stage of framing of issues, the things occasion, then Amin Report would
be called in that regard and the dilatory tactics has been adopted.

8. In the opinion of the Court, no prejudice whatsoever is being caused, as
the said option is already open and the said aspect would be taken as and
when the same stands occasioned.

9. Accordingly, interference is declined. Resultantly, the writ petition stands
disposed of.

May 7, 2026
N.S.Rathour

(Vikas Budhwar,J.)

Digitally signed by :-
NIPENDRA SINGH RATHOUR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…