Allahabad High Court

JAGDISH YADAVversusSMT. CHHAYA AND 4 OTHERS

Decided: 17 May 2026
Bench: VIKAS BUDHWAR

Holding

The writ petition is disposed with a direction to the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate to decide the pending application expeditiously, without unnecessary adjournments.

Summary

The petitioner, Jagdish Yadav, filed a writ petition under Article 227 seeking a direction to the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate II, Gautam Buddh Nagar, to decide Misc. Case No. 2 of 2026 concerning compliance with a temporary injunction dated 19 March 2021, issued in the original suit of 2018. The petition argued that the pending application under Order 39 Rule 2‑A of the CPC should be decided expeditiously. The Court observed that the underlying case was still pending and that keeping the writ petition alive would serve no useful purpose. Consequently, the Court disposed of the writ petition, directing the magistrate to decide the pending application without unnecessary adjournments, provided there is no other legal impediment. The order was signed on 18 May 2026.

Issues considered

Whether the High Court can issue a direction to a magistrate to decide a pending application under Order 39 Rule 2‑A CPC for compliance of a temporary injunction.
Whether the writ petition should be kept pending when the substantive matter is still pending before the magistrate.

Legislation cited

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. Order 39 Rule 2-A
Constitution of India — s. Article 227

Subjects

Article 227
Civil Procedure Code
Order 39 Rule 2-A
temporary injunction
expeditious disposal
writ petition
magistrate direction

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 6877 of 2026

Jagdish Yadav
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
Smt. Chhaya And 4 Others
.....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Vivek Prakash Mishra
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.

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

1. Heard.

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

3. The solitary relief claimed in the present writ petition for a direction to
the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate II, Gautam Buddh Nagar to
decide the Misc. Case No. 2 of 2026 (Jagdish Yadav vs. Chhaya and
another) under Order 39 Rule 2-A C.P.C. for compliance of the temporary
injunction order dated 19.03.2021 in 6-C2 application passed in Original
Suit No. 687 of 2018 (Jagdish Yadav vs. Smt. Chhaya and another).

4. Learned counsel prayed that the said application may be decided,
expeditiously.

5. Since the above-mentioned case is pending, no useful purpose would
be served in keeping this petition pending.

6. In view of the above, this writ petition stands disposed of with a
direction to the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate II, Gautam Buddh
Nagar to decide the Misc. Case No. 2 of 2026 (Jagdish Yadav vs. Chhaya
and another) under Order 39 Rule 2-A C.P.C. for compliance of the
temporary injunction order dated 19.03.2021 in 6-C2 application passed
in Original Suit No. 687 of 2018 (Jagdish Yadav vs. Smt. Chhaya and
another), in accordance with law, expeditiously without granting
A227 No. 6877 of 2026
2

unnecessary adjournments provided there is no other legal impediment.
May 18, 2026
Rajesh
(Vikas Budhwar,J.)

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

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…