HEERA LAL AND 4 OTHERSversusCHANDRA SHEKHAR AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
            MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 6271 of 2026

Heera Lal And 4 Others
                                                             .....Petitioner(s)
                                   Versus

Chandra Shekhar And Another
                                                           .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)        : Rishikesh Tripathi, Shashwat Tripathi
Counsel for Respondent(s)        :

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

1. Heard Sri Rishikesh Tripathi, learned counsel for the defendant-
petitioners.

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

3. The case of the defendant-petitioners is that an O.S. NO.328 of 2022 was
instituted by the plaintiff-respondent before the Court of Civil Judge (Junior
Division) for prohibitory as well as mandatory injunction, which came to be
decreed on 08.03.2021, against which the defendant-petitioners preferred a
Civil Appeal no.7 of 2021 before the Court of District Judge, Banda, which
was admitted on 01.04.2021 and on stay, dates were fixed. Thereafter, on
30.04.2025, the stay application came to be decided, whereby though stay
was not accorded, but the appeal was directed to be decided. In the
meantime, the execution proceedings, an order came to be passed on
26.11.2025 seeking recourse from the Amin itself. The defendant-petitioner
thereafter preferred an application on 17.12.2025 purported to be under
Order 41 Rule 5 CPC read with Order 21 Rule 1 and 2 CPC further read with
Section 151 of CPC.

4. Grievance of the writ petitioner is that though there is no stay order
operating and the execution is proceeding, thus the very purpose of filing of
appeal would stand redundant and he seeks to rely upon the judgment of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in Mool Chand Yadav and another vs. Raza Buland
Sugar Company Limited, Rampur and others, (1982) 3 SCC 484.

5. In the opinion of the Court, once an appeal against the decree which
                                                                                               A227 No. 6271 of 2026
                                                                     2


                                    stands passed against the appellant/petitioner herein has been filed and on
                                    17.12.2025, an application has been preferred under Order 41 Rule 5 read
                                    with Section 151 of CPC, then it is for the defendant-petitioner to approach
                                    the Court for grant of interim protection in this regard. Pertinently, the order
                                    dated 30.04.2025 has not been challenged whereby stay was not accorded,
                                    but the date was fixed.

                                    6. On a pointed query being raised to the learned counsel for the defendant-
                                    petitioner as to what is the next date fixed in the appeal, he is not in a
                                    position to answer the same.

                                    7. Be that as it may be, the Appellate Court is required to decide the
                                    application dated 17.12.2025 on the date fixed without granting unnecessary
                                    adjournments bearing in mind the judgment in the case of Mool Chand
                                    Yadav (supra) and the fact that the appeal stood in that regard.

                                    8. With the said observations, the writ petition stands disposed of.

                                    May 5, 2026
                                    N.S.Rathour

                                                                                              (Vikas Budhwar,J.)




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