Allahabad High Court
MAHARAJ KUMARI VISHNUPRIYAversusMAHARAJ KUMARI HARPRIYA AND 2 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The Court corrected the typographical omission but dismissed the review petition, finding no error in the substantive finding that the injunction application was vague.
Summary
Maharaj Kumari Vishnupriya filed a suit for injunction, partition and declaration concerning five properties and sought a temporary injunction, which the trial court dismissed. She appealed that dismissal, and the High Court, on 14 July 2026, observed that the plaintiff's injunction application was vague and omitted the words "suit properties" in paragraph 13 of its order. The applicant filed a review petition alleging that this typographical error and the finding of vagueness were erroneous. The Court examined the petition and held that the omission was a harmless typographical mistake that could be corrected, but the finding of vagueness was not perverse or contrary to the record. It further noted that a review cannot be used to re‑open the merits of the case. Consequently, the review petition was dismissed, with the order amended to insert the missing words "suit properties".
Issues considered
- The omission of the words "suit properties" in paragraph 13 of the judgment constitutes a material error requiring correction.
- Whether the High Court's finding that the injunction application was vague is perverse or erroneous and thus reviewable.
- Whether a review petition can be entertained to revisit the merits of the original injunction application.
Subjects
- injunction
- temporary injunction
- review petition
- typographical error
- civil procedure
- appellate court
- merits
- vagueness
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION No. - 150 of 2026
Maharaj Kumari Vishnupriya
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
Maharaj Kumari Harpriya And 2 Others
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ritvik Upadhya
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Sanjay Singh, Saurabh Raj Srivastava
Court No. - 54
HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR-X, J.
1. Heard Sri Ritvik Upadhya, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Gajendra
Pratap, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Sanjay Singh, and Sri Saurabh Raj Srivastava,
learned counsel for respondent.
2. This review petition has been filed by the applicant with a view to draw the
attention of this Court towards certain infirmities in the order dated 14.7.2026 passed
in First Appeal From Order No. 999 of 2024. Before dealing with the arguments
raised by learned counsel for the applicant, it would be appropriate to mention, in
brief, the facts which gave rise to F.A.F.O. No. 999 of 2024.
3. The applicant/plaintiff instituted a suit for injunction, partition, as well as
declaration before the Trial Court. In the said suit, five properties, namely, A, B, C, D
and Z, were stated to be the suit properties. An application for temporary injunction in
respect of the suit properties was filed before the Trial Court, which came to be
dismissed. Against the said order of dismissal, First Appeal From Order No. 999 of
2024 was filed before this Court.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant/plaintiff has urged before this Court that, in its
order dated 14.7.2026, this Court has wrongly transcribed the prayer made by the
plaintiff in his application for temporary injunction filed before the Trial Court. He
has drawn the attention of this Court to the injunction application filed by him before
the Trial Court.
5. From a perusal of the injunction application filed by the applicant and the order
impugned therein, it is apparent that paragraph 13 contains a slight error. The prayer
for temporary injunction was reproduced in the judgment of this Court and, in the last
line, the word 'properties' after the word 'suit' has been omitted, and only the word
'suit' has been mentioned. The said typographical error is liable to be corrected, and
the words 'suit properties' is to be mentioned instead in the aforementioned paragraph
of the impugned order.
CMRA No. 150 of 2026
2
6. Learned counsel further submitted that this Court has observed that the injunction
application of the plaintiff was vague and advanced his arguments at great length in
this regard.
7. This Court does not propose to go into those arguments, as they virtually amount
to an attempt to re-open the merits of the said case and the findings recorded by this
Court. This Court has itself perused its order and the facts which were placed before it.
The said facts were discussed by learned counsel for both the parties, and they
admitted that the facts were the same as those stated by this Court in its order dated
14.07.2026.
8. This Court is of the firm view that the word 'vague' was used in respect of the
application for temporary injunction filed by the plaintiff after considering the subject
matter of the suit as well as the application for temporary injunction. This Court
reiterates that it does not find the said finding to be either perverse or suffering from
any error apparent on the face of the record. Nor has this Court misread the particulars
or the prayer made in the said application.
9. Therefore, this Court does not find any ground to entertain the present review
application.
10. Learned counsel for the respondent has also argued that, if there is any
irregularity or illegality in the order, the same may be assailed before the superior
Court, and that a review petition for challenging the merits of the case is not
maintainable.
11. Accordingly, this review petition is dismissed, subject to the extent that the
typographical error occurring in paragraph No. 13 of the judgment shall stand rectified
in terms of the observations made hereinabove.
September 9, 2026
Mukesh
(Anil Kumar-X,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
MUKESH SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…