M/S RAWAT EINT YDYOG AND ANOTHERversusTHAKUR DWARIKANATH BRIJBHUSHAN VIRAJMAN MANDIR AND 2 OTHERS

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

         MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 6878 of 2026

M/S Rawat Eint Ydyog And Another
                                                               .....Petitioner(s)
                                    Versus

Thakur Dwarikanath Brijbhushan Virajman Mandir
And 2 Others                                                 .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)        : Ashish Bansal, Rama Goel Bansal,
                                   Shalini Goel
Counsel for Respondent(s)        : Prashant Shukla, Ram Prakash Upadhyay

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

1. Heard Ms. Rama Goel Bansal, learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioners
and Sri Prashant Shukla, learned counsel, who appears for defendant-
respondents.

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

3. 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.

4. The case of the plaintiff-petitioners is that the plaintiff-petitioners is
instituted an Original Suit No. 781 of 2022 seeking permanent injunction the
defendants therein from interfering the possession of the property in question
and not to otherwise dislodge them other than in accordance with law along
with the said plaint, an application under order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC came to
be preferred and the trial court and the court of Additional Civil Judge
(Senior Division) Court No. 2, Mathura in Original Suit No. 781 of 2022 p
assed an injunction order on 31.03.2023 restraining the defendants from
dislodging or evicting the plaintiffs-petitioners from the property being
Khata no. 120 (new no.119), Khsra no. 225 measuring an area of 3.238 half
share i.e. 1.619 hectare situated at Mauja Surir Bijau Bangar, Tehsil-Mant,
District-Mathura. Aggrieved against the same, the defendant-respondents
preferred a Civil Miscellenous Appeal before the Court of Additional
District Judge, Court no.1, Mathura which came to be allowed on
                                                           A227 No. 6878 of 2026
                                2


06.06.2026 while setting aside the order dated 31.03.2023.

5. Questioning the order dated 06.05.2026 passed by the Additional District
Judge, Court no.1, Mathura in Misc. Civil Appeal no. 47 of 2023, the present
has been preferred.

6. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioners has sought to argue that the
order passed by the appellate court cannot be sustained even for a single
moment. Particularly, when as per the recitals contained in the plaint itself,
the case set up by the plaintiff-petitioners was that it was put in possession
and by virtue of a rent deed dated 27.12.2003 on the payment of monthly
rent. Submission is that once the plaintiff-petitioners happens to be a tenant
 then eviction can only be done in accordance with law as the plaintiff-
petitioners is not trespasser or unauthorized occupant. Further submission is
that that the trial court while granting injunction had considered the criteria
which are to be adhered for grant of injunction i.e. prima facie case, balance
of convenience and irreparable loss taking into account the rent deed.
However, the appellate court has upset the findings on certain grounds which
have no nexus with the reality despite the fact that there is no dispute for
rather admission regarding the rent deed itself.

7. Sri Prashant Shukla who appeared for the defendants-respondents on the
other hands submits that whatever might be the plaintiff-petitioners cannot
insist for grant of injunction as a matter of right as the same is dependent
upon various factors. According to him, there is a serious dispute regarding
the veracity and the legality of rent deed and also the rent. However,
according to him, the appellate order does not discuss the entire cases on
correct perspectives. On his request, when the matter was taken up pre-
recess, the matter was postponed to be taken post-recess while seeking
instructions as to what would be the stand of the defendant-respondents.
According to him, the defendant-respondents intend that the the order of the
appellate court be set aside and matter stands remitted back to pass fresh
orders.

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

9. Apparently, the entire suit hinges upon a rent deed. The question whether
the rent deed is a genuine document or not is a subject matter of fact. On a
pointed query being raised to the learned counsel for the defendants-
                                                                                               A227 No. 6878 of 2026
                                                                     3


                                    respondents as to who is in the possession of the property? The answer is the
                                    plaintiff-petitioners. Once the position being so without going into the
                                    legality of the rent deed, this court is of the opinion that the appellate court
                                    ought to have done something more while considering the true impact of
                                    balance of convenience, irreparable loss and the prima facie case. Since the
                                    said exercise is lacking, thus, the order impugned cannot be sustained.

                                    10. Accordingly, the order dated 06.05.2026 passed by the Additional
                                    District Judge, Court no.1, Mathura in Misc. Civil Appeal no. 47 of 2023 is
                                    set aside.

                                    11. Matter stands remitted back to the appellate court to pass fresh orders.

                                    12. The Court is mindful of the fact that the summer vacations are to
                                    commence from 01, June, 2026, thus, it is required that the appellate court
                                    without granting unnecessary adjournments shall decide the Civil Misc.
                                    Appeal which post remand is to be decided by August itself.

                                    13. Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of.

                                    May 18, 2026
                                    Ashu
                                                                                              (Vikas Budhwar,J.)




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