Allahabad High Court
ATEEQ AHMEDversusLAXMI NARAYAN AND 70 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- ABDUL SHAHID
Holding
The court modified the status‑quo order to apply only to the portions J, K, E, F shown in the plaint map and restrained the appellant from interfering with those portions only.
Summary
The appellant Ateeq Ahmad appealed against a status‑quo order dated 23‑12‑2025 that restrained him from interfering with a disputed property. The original suit filed by Laxki Narayan sought a permanent injunction over portions shown as J, K, E, F on the plaint map, while the appellant claimed ownership of portions C, D, K, E under a registered sale deed executed in 2012. The respondent argued that the sale deed covered only C, D, K, E and that the appellant was unlawfully using the land shown as J, K, E, F. The High Court examined the map and the parties' claims and held that the status‑quo order should be limited to the disputed portions J, K, E, F only. Consequently, the appellant was restrained from interfering with those portions but was free to deal with the rest of his claimed land. The appeal was disposed with the modified order.
Issues considered
- Whether the status‑quo injunction should extend to the entire property or be limited to the portions alleged in the plaint
- Whether the appellant's registered sale deed confers ownership over portions C, D, K, E, thereby excluding him from the injunction
Subjects
- injunction
- status quo
- property dispute
- registered sale deed
- civil procedure
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 1055 of 2026
Ateeq Ahmed
.....Appellant(s)
Versus
Laxmi Narayan And 70 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s) : Himanshu Dubey, Subhash Chandra Maurya,
Sr. Advocate
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Panchu Ram Maurya, Ramesh Kumar,
Hanuman Prasad Kushwaha
Court No. - 39
HON'BLE ABDUL SHAHID, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant/defendant and the learned counsel
for respondent/plaintiff, who is the contesting party in the original suit.
2. Being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 23.12.2025, which is passed
in Original Suit No. 224 of 2025 (Laxmi Narayan Vs. Ateeq Ahmad and
others), the appellant/Ateeq Ahmad has preferred this present appeal. By the
impugned order, it has been ordered that till the next date of listing, both the
parties are required to maintain status quo in the said property.
3. The Original Suit No. 224 of 2025 has been filed by the
respondent/plaintiff Laxmi Narain against Ateeq
Ahmad/appellant/defendants and 70 others for permanent and mandatory
injunction. The map attached with the plaint is of entire property which is
shown as A, B, E,F ,G, H.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that he is defendant no.1
in Original Suit No. 224 of 2025. He is owner and in possession of his
property by virtue of registered sale deed in his favour. There is another suit
No. 180 of 2025 which is filed by Ateeq Ahmad Vs. Mahesh Kumar and
others for the relief of permanent injunction. It is submitted that registered
sale deed in favour of appellant was executed in the year 2012. There is
another suit being Original Suit No. 47 of 2011 filed by Ateeq
Ahmad/appellant (Ateeq Ahmad Vs. Gokul Kushwaha and others), which
was dismissed in default and now restoration application is pending before
the competent court. The original suit No. 180 of 2025 which is filed by
Ateeq Ahmad/appellant/defendant was filed on 29.9.2025, whereas Original
FAFO No. 1055 of 2026
2
Suit No. 224 of 2025 was filed on 23.12.2025. A temporary injunction order
of status quo has been passed in both the Original Suit No. 180 of 2025 and
224 of 2024 and the suits are pending.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff has submitted that he has
filed Original Suit No. 224 of 2025 where dispute is only to portion shown
as K,J,E, F, whereas Ateeq Ahmad/appellant/defendant no.1 is owner of
only portion of C,D.K,E by way of registered sale deed. The submission of
learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff that the registered sale deed in
favour of appellant/Ateeq Ahmad is to only portion C,D,K.E and he is
having no objection about it that it is in actual ownership and possession of
appellant/Ateeq Ahmad. He has further submitted that the matter in dispute
is of the land shown in the map attached with the plaint as J.K,E.F which is
unauthorizedly used by appellant/Ateeq Ahmad/defendant no.1.
6. After consideration of all these facts, the order of status quo dated
23.12.2025, passed by the learned trial court is only upto the limited portion
shown as J,K,E.F in the map attached with the plaint and rest portion of
appellant/Ateeq Ahmad shown in the map attached with the plaint as C,D.E,
K is not covered and the appellant/defendant is further restrained not to
make any interference into any other land shown in the map attached with
the plaint.
7. With these modification in the impugned order dated 23.12.2025, the
present appeal is finally disposed of.
May 12, 2026
sfa/
(Abdul Shahid,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
SYED FAHEEM AHMAD
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…