NARENDRA SINGHversusMAHENDRA SING AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

         MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 5833 of 2026

Narendra Singh
                                                               .....Petitioner(s)
                                    Versus
Mahendra Sing And Another
                                                             .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)        : Mohd. Saleem Khan
Counsel for Respondent(s)        : Abhishek, Ajay Singh,             Ramendra
                                   Asthana

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

1. Heard Sri Mohd. Saleem Khan, learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner
and Sri Ramendra Asthana along with Sri Abhishek, learned counsel, who
appears for defendant-respondents.

2. The counsel for the rival parties have made a joint statement that they do
not propose to file any further affidavits thus with the consent of the parties,
writ petition is being decided at the fresh stage.

3. The case of the plaintiff-petitioner is that the plaintiff-petitioner had
instituted in Original Suit No. 350 of 2025 (Narendra Singh Vs. Mahendra
Singh and others) seeking permanent injunction against the defendants
therein along with the plaint, an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of
the CPC for grant of temporary injunction was also filed. On 03.07.2025, the
Court while entertaining the suit, issue notices and did not grant interim
injunction. However, according to the plaintiff-petitioner, on the very next
date i.e. 04.07.2025 at 11.00 in the noon, the defendants in the said suit
barged into the premises of the plaintiff-petitioner and started creating
obstacles and hindrances, thus, an application under section 151 CPC came
to be preferred for issuing of an appropriate directions restraining the
defendant therein not to forcefully dispossessing the plaintiff-petitioner. On
the said application, on 05.07.2025, an injunction order was passed
restraining the defendants therein from interfering. Against the said order, a
Civil Revision No. 36 of 2025 came to be preferred by the defendants-
respondent which has been allowed on 30.03.2026 requiring the trial court to
decide the application 6(C).
                                                           A227 No. 5833 of 2026
                                 2


4. Questioning the same, the petitioner has been filed the present petition.

5. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner has sought to argue that the
order passed by the revisional court cannot be sustained for more than one
reason firstly against the interlocutory order, revision would not lie and
secondly in-extraordinary circumstances which had emerged due to
subsequent events post passing of the order on 03.07.2025 it occasioned
the plaintiff-petitioner to file an application under Section 151 CPC for grant
of protection which has been rightly allowed in that regard.

6. Countering the said submissions, Sri Ramendra Asthana along with
Sri Abhishek, learned counsel, who appears for defendant-respondents
submits that revision itself is maintainable, particularly, in view of the
judgment in the case of Satya Prakash and another v. Ist Additional
District Judge and others; AIR 2002 All. 198. Submission is also to the
extent that none of the criteria being prima facie case, balance of
convenience and irreparable loss has considered while passing the orders in
the proceedings under Section 151 CPC.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records
carefully.

8. Apparently, the suit was instituted by the plaintiff-petitioner, notices were
issued and thereafter proceedings under Section 151 CPC came to be
instituted as interim protection was not accorded under Order 39 of Rule 1
and 2 CPC.

9. Plainly and simply, the consideration which weighed with the revisional
authority was that neither the prima facie case nor balance of convenience or
irreparable loss has been considered while deciding the proceedings under
Section 151 CPC.

10. In the opinion of the Court, the three ingredients are to be adverted too
while granting injunction or while refusing to grant injunction since the said
exercise is lacking, thus, rightly the revisional court set aside the order.

11. At this stage, learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner submits that the
matter stands remitted back to the trial court to decide the application 6(C)
afresh on the next date fixed as 20.05.2026. He, however, apprehends that
the Court is vacant, thus, on that date, the injunction application would not
be considered.
                                                                                               A227 No. 5833 of 2026
                                                                     3


                                    12. Accordingly, the interference is declined, the petition stands disposed of.
                                    Leaving it open to the plaintiff-petitioner to prefer an appropriate application
                                    before the court below insisting for disposal of the application under Order
                                    39 of Rule 1 and 2 CPC on the next date fixed i.e. 20.05.2026. In case, the
                                    court is vacant, it is always for the plaintiff-petitioner to approach the
                                    District Judge concerned who shall thereupon assign the matter to a Court
                                    which is already functioning.

                                    May 6, 2026
                                    Ashu
                                                                                              (Vikas Budhwar,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
ASHUTOSH KUMAR PRAJAPATI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad