Allahabad High Court
U.P. through collector ayodhyaversusSamarath Narayan and 3 others
- Decided
- Disposal
- Allowed/Partly Allowed on merits/Granted
- Bench
- SUBHASH VIDYARTHI
Holding
The State of U.P. is maintainable under Order XXI Rule 99 read with Rule 101 CPC and the trial court’s dismissal of its application was erroneous.
Summary
The State of Uttar Pradesh, acting as the revisionist, challenged a December 16, 2025 order of the Special Judge that dismissed its application under Order XXI Rule 99 read with Rule 101 of the CPC, which sought relief after the expiry of a 99‑year lease on land originally vested in the State’s Nazool department. The dispute arose from an ejectment suit where the decree‑holders (three private parties) obtained a decree against the State Bank of India, a tenant under a lease that had expired in 1975, and the State claimed reversionary title to the unconverted portion of the land. The trial court held the State’s application was not maintainable, reasoning that the State was not the dispossessed party. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Brahmdeo Chaudhary v. Rishikesh Prasad Jaiswal, the High Court held that the State, as the original lessor, could invoke Order XXI Rule 99 to contest its dispossession and that the lower court’s dismissal was erroneous. Consequently, the revision was allowed, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the District Judge for fresh determination, with a status‑quo order pending. The Court also noted the presiding officer of the executing court had acted beyond his jurisdiction in favour of the decree‑holders.
Issues considered
- Whether the State of U.P., as the original lessor, is maintainable under Order XXI Rule 99 read with Rule 101 CPC to seek relief against dispossession in execution proceedings.
- Whether the trial court erred in holding that the State was not the dispossessed party for purposes of Order XXI Rule 99.
- Whether the presiding officer of the executing court acted beyond his jurisdiction in rejecting the State’s application and issuing letters to authorities.
Legislation cited
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. 47, Order XXI Rule 101, Order XXI Rule 97, Order XXI Rule 99
- Provincial Small Causes Courts Act, 1887 — s. 25
Subjects
- execution of decree
- Order XXI Rule 99
- leasehold reversion
- maintainability
- civil revision
- bias of presiding officer
- status quo
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
S.C.C. REVISION No. - 22 of 2025
State Of U.P. Through Collector Ayodhya
.....Revisionist(s)
Versus
Samarath Narayan And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Revisionist(s) : Mohit Jauhari
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : C.S.C.
Court No. - 17
HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.
1. Heard Shri Sudeep Kumar, the learned Senior Advocate and Additional
Advocate General along with Sri Nishant Shukla, the learned Additional
Chief Standing Counsel for the revisionist - State of U.P., Sri Manoj Kumar
Mishra and Shri Jai Prakash Singh Advocates, the learned counsel for the
opposite party Nos.1, 2 and 3 and Shri Sharad Dwivedi Advocate, the
learned counsel for the opposite party No.4- State Bank of India.
2. By means of the instant revision filed under Section 25 of the Provincial
Small Causes Courts Act, 1887, the revisionist - State of U.P. has challenged
the validity of an order dated 16.12.2025 passed by the Special Judge E.C.
Act/Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No.4, Ayodhya in
Miscellaneous Civil Case No.7 of 2025, rejecting an application under Order
XXI Rule 99 read with Rule 101 C.P.C.
3. As copies of all the relevant documents have been annexed with the memo
of revision, there is no necessity of summoning the record of the executing
Court. Further, as the learned counsel for the petitioner has advanced
submissions regarding maintainability of the application under Order XXI
Rule 99 read with 101 CPC only and has not proposed to press the merits of
the application, the learned counsel for the opposite parties have stated that
they do not propose to file a counter affidavit and they have advanced
submissions in opposition of the revision. Accordingly, the revision is being
decided finally at the admission stage.
4. The aforesaid case arises out of SCC Suit No.2 of 1999 filed by the
opposite parties No.1, 2 and 3 for ejectment of the opposite party No.4 -
SCCR No. 22 of 2025
2
State Bank of India from the property which is described in the plaint as
follows:-
"DESCRIPTION OF THE PREMISES IN SUIT
As described in the compromise with annexed site plan dated
03.12.1901 signed & filed by the parties in S.C.C.No. 1 of 1978 in
the court of Judge S.C.C. (IInd. A.D.J., Faizabad) Faizabad &
which was accepted by the parties also in lease deed dated
05.12.1981 relating thereto and which is described below and
also for more clarity described in the annexed site plan.
Building with out-houses bearing Nagar Palika H.No.1/13/284
Civil Lines, FAIZABAD alongwith adjoining land marked by
letters A B C D E F G H in the annexed site plan which is in
occupation of defendant's main Branch, Civil Lines, Faizabad."
5. A site plan is annexed with the plaint which shows a bank building
constructed on a small area towards the Northern side of the property in
dispute, some out-houses constructed at the South-Western corner of the
property and a large chunk of open land. The site plan does not specify the
area covered by the bank building and the out-houses and the area of the
open land. It mentions the total area as 83,300 sq. ft. approximately. The suit
was a decreed by a judgment dated 29.05.2008. The decree has attained
finality up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
6. The plaintiffs - decree holders filed Execution Case No.8 of 2008 for
execution of the decree dated 29.05.2008. The State of U.P. filed an
application under Order XXI Rule 97 (1) read with Section 47 C.P.C. which
was rejected by means of an order dated 28.10.2025 holding the same to be
not maintainable. The State filed an application for recall of the order dated
28.10.2025 which application was rejected by means of an order dated
3.11.2025. Thereafter the State filed an application dated 18.11.2025 under
Order XXI Rule 99 read with Rule 101 C.P.C. inter alia stating that in the
year 1876 Nazool department had executed a lease deed in respect of 14
bigha 14 biswa land in favour of Raja Pratap Narayan Singh and Raja Brij
Narayan Singh for a period of 99 years. Raja Pratap Narayan Singh
constructed a Kothi, some outhouses and other structures and he had
transferred 6 bigha 6 biswansi 15 kachhuwansi 3 anuwansi land to M/s
Awadh Commercial Bank Ltd., through a registered deed dated 04.12.1915.
On 19.01.1916, Awadh Commercial Bank executed a registered deed
transferring the aforesaid property to Shri Ram Raghuvir Lal. On 01.04.1923
the purchaser - Shri Ram Raghuvir Lal had leased out the structures to
Imperial Bank of India. The 99 years duration of lease expired on
SCCR No. 22 of 2025
3
21.05.1975 but Imperial Bank of India and thereafter its successor - State
Bank of India, continued to occupy the building in its tenancy. The plaintiffs
are descendants of Late Ram Raghuvir Lal, the lesser who had let out the
premises to Imperial Bank of India and thus, the plaintiffs became land-lords
of State Bank of India and the suit for ejectment of the tenant filed by them
has been decreed. During execution proceedings instituted by the decree
holders – the opposite party Nos.1, 2 and 3, the State of U. P. filed the
aforesaid application stating that after expiry of the 99 years' term of lease
on 21.05.1975, the property stands reverted to the original lesser of Raja
Pratap Narayan Singh and Raja Brij Narayan Singh, i.e., the State of U.P.
7. It has also been stated in the application that the opposite party Nos.1, 2
and 3 had filed applications for conversion of lease hold rights into free hold
rights upon which lease hold rights of two portions of the land in dispute
measuring 34,000 sq. ft. and 4,000 sq. ft. were converted into free hold
rights.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the entire area leased
out by Nazool in respect of Raja Pratap Narayan Singh and Raja Brij
Narayan Singh in the year 1876, was 14 bigha 14 biswa, which comes to
about 1,74,000 sq. ft. Out of the aforesaid area, merely 38,000 sq. ft has been
converted to free hold land of the opposite party Nos.1, 2 and 3. The
remaining 83,000 sq. ft. continued to be lease hold property and after expiry
of lease on 21.05.1975, the lessees or their tranferees/descendants have no
right in respect of the property in question. In these circumstances, the
petitioner had filed an application under Order XXI Rules 99 and 101 C.P.C.
9. The trial Court has rejected the application by means of the impugned
order dated 16.12.2025 by holding that the State of U.P. has not been
dispossessed in execution of the decree and it is the tenant- State Bank of
India which is being dispossessed. Therefore, the application under Order
XXI Rule 99 read with Rule 101 CPC filed by the State is not maintainable.
10. Assailing validity of the aforesaid order, Sri. Sudeep Kumar, the learned
Additional Advocate General has placed reliance upon a judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Brahmdeo Chaudhary v. Rishikesh
Prasad Jaiswal and Anr, (1997) 3 SCC 694.
11. Order XXI Rule 99 read with Rule 101 CPC provide as follows:-
"99. Dispossession by decree-holder or purchaser-(1) Where any
person other than the judgment-debtor is dispossessed of
immovable property by the holder of a decree for the possession of
such property or, where such property has been sold in execution
of a decree, by the purchaser thereof, he may make an application
SCCR No. 22 of 2025
4
to the Court complaining of such dispossession.
(2) Where any such application is made, the Court shall proceed
to adjudicate upon the application in accordance with the
provisions herein contained.
***
101. Question to be determined. All questions (including
questions relating to right, title or interest in the property) arising
between the parties to a proceeding on an application under Rule
97 or Rule 99 or their representatives, and relevant to the
adjudication of the application, shall be determined by the Court
dealing with the application and not by a separate suit and for this
purpose, the Court shall, notwithstanding anything to the contrary
contained in any other law for the time being in force, be deemed
to have jurisdiction to decide such questions."
12. In Brahmdeo Chaudhary v. Rishikesh Prasad Jaiswal and Anr,
(1997) 3 SCC 694 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows: -
"8. A conjoint reading of Order 21, Rules 97, 98, 99 and 101
projects the following picture:
(1) If a decree-holder is resisted or obstructed in execution of the
decree for possession with the result that the decree for
possession could not be executed in the normal manner by
obtaining warrant for possession under Order 21, Rule 35 then
the decree-holder has to move an application under Order 21,
Rule 97 for removal of such obstruction and after hearing the
decree-holder and the obstructionist the court can pass
appropriate orders after adjudicating upon the controversy
between the parties as enjoined by Order 21, Rule 97, sub-rule
(2) read with Order 21, Rule 98. It is obvious that after such
adjudication if it is found that the resistance or obstruction was
occasioned without a just cause by the judgment-debtor or by
some other person at his instigation or on his behalf then such
obstruction or resistance would be removed as per Order 21,
Rule 98, sub-rule (2) and the decree-holder would be permitted
to be put in possession. Even in such an eventuality the order
passed would be treated as a decree under Order 21, Rule 101
and no separate suit would lie against such order meaning
thereby the only remedy would be to prefer an appeal before the
appropriate appellate court against such deemed decree.
(2) If for any reason a stranger to the decree is already
dispossessed of the suit property relating to which he claims any
right, title or interest before his getting any opportunity to resist
or offer obstruction on the spot on account of his absence from
the place or for any other valid reason then his remedy would lie
in filing an application under Order 21, Rule 99 CPC claiming
that his dispossession was illegal and that possession deserves to
be restored to him. If such an application is allowed after
adjudication then as enjoined by Order 21, Rule 98, sub-rule (1)
CPC the executing court can direct the stranger applicant under
Order 21, Rule 99 to be put in possession of the property or if his
application is found to be substanceless, it has to be dismissed.
Such an order passed by the executing court disposing of the
SCCR No. 22 of 2025
5
application one way or the other under Order 21, Rule 98, sub-
rule (1) would be deemed to be a decree as laid down by Order
21, Rule 103 and would be appealable before appropriate
appellate forum. But no separate suit would lie against such
orders as clearly enjoined by Order 21, Rule 101.
9. In short the aforesaid statutory provisions of Order 21 lay down
a complete code for resolving all disputes pertaining to execution
of the decree for possession obtained by a decree-holder and
whose attempts at executing the said decree meet with rough
weather. Once resistance is offered by a purported stranger to the
decree and which comes to be noted by the executing court as well
as by the decree-holder the remedy available to the decree-holder
against such an obstructionist is only under Order 21, Rule 97,
sub-rule (1) and he cannot bypass such obstruction and insist on
reissuance of warrant for possession under Order 21, Rule 35 with
the help of police force, as that course would amount to bypassing
and circumventing the procedure laid down under Order 21, Rule
97 in connection with removal of obstruction of purported
strangers to the decree. Once such an obstruction is on the record
of the executing court it is difficult to appreciate how the executing
court can tell such obstructionist that he must first lose possession
and then only his remedy is to move an application under Order
21, Rule 99 CPC and pray for restoration of possession. The High
Court by the impugned order and judgment has taken the view that
the only remedy available to a stranger to the decree who claims
any independent right, title or interest in the decretal property is to
go by Order 21, Rule 99. This view of the High Court on the
aforesaid statutory scheme is clearly unsustainable. It is easy to
visualise that a stranger to the decree who claims an independent
right, title and interest in the decretal property can offer his
resistance before getting actually dispossessed. He can equally
agitate his grievance and claim for adjudication of his
independent right, title and interest in the decretal property even
after losing possession as per Order 21, Rule 99. Order 21, Rule
97 deals with a stage which is prior to the actual execution of the
decree for possession wherein the grievance of the obstructionist
can be adjudicated upon before actual delivery of possession to
the decree-holder. While Order 21, Rule 99 on the other hand
deals with the subsequent stage in the execution proceedings
where a stranger claiming any right, title and interest in the
decretal property might have got actually dispossessed and claims
restoration of possession on adjudication of his independent right,
title and interest dehors the interest of the judgment-debtor. Both
these types of enquiries in connection with the right, title and
interest of a stranger to the decree are clearly contemplated by the
aforesaid scheme of Order 21 and it is not as if that such a
stranger to the decree can come in the picture only at the final
stage after losing possession and not before it if he is vigilant
enough to raise his objection and obstruction before the warrant
for possession gets actually executed against him. With respect the
High Court has totally ignored the scheme of Order 21, Rule 97 in
this connection by taking the view that only remedy of such
stranger to the decree lies under Order 21, Rule 99 and he has no
locus standi to get adjudication of his claim prior to the actual
SCCR No. 22 of 2025
6
delivery of possession to the decree-holder in the execution
proceedings. The view taken by the High Court in this connection
also results in patent breach of principles of natural justice as the
obstructionist, who alleges to have any independent right, title and
interest in the decretal property and who is admittedly not a party
to the decree even though making a grievance right in time before
the warrant for execution is actually executed, would be told off
the gates and his grievance would not be considered or heard on
merits and he would be thrown off lock, stock and barrel by use of
police force by the decree-holder. That would obviously result in
irreparable injury to such obstructionist whose grievance would
go overboard without being considered on merits and such
obstructionist would be condemned totally unheard. Such an order
of the executing court, therefore, would fail also on the ground of
non-compliance with basic principles of natural justice. On the
contrary the statutory scheme envisaged by Order 21, Rule 97
CPC as discussed earlier clearly guards against such a pitfall and
provides a statutory remedy both to the decree-holder as well as to
the obstructionist to have their respective say in the matter and to
get proper adjudication before the executing court and it is that
adjudication which subject to the hierarchy of appeals would
remain binding between the parties to such proceedings and
separate suit would be barred with a view to seeing that
multiplicity of proceedings and parallel proceedings are avoided
and the gamut laid down by Order 21, Rules 97 to 103 would
remain a complete code and the sole remedy for the parties
concerned to have their grievances once and for all finally
resolved in execution proceedings themselves."
13. Shri Manoj Kumar Mishra, the learned counsel for the opposite party
Nos.1, 2 and 3 has raised two-fold preliminary objections. The first objection
is that the Execution Case No.08 of 2008 has finally been disposed of by
means of an order dated 02.01.2026. In these circumstances, the instant
revision, challenging the order dated 16.12.2025 passed in execution case
would not be maintainable without a challenge being made to the order dated
02.01.2026 which decides the execution case finally. His second objection is
that the State of U.P. has filed Regular Suit No.1521 of 2025 which is
pending in the Court of learned Additional Civil Judge, S.D.-II/ A.C.J.M.,
Ayodhya. This fact has been concealed by filing this instant revision.
14. In reply to the aforesaid objections, the learned Additional Advocate
General has submitted that the petitioners had filed an application under
Order XXI Rule 99 read with Rule 101 CPC, which was registered as a
separate Miscellaneous Case No.7 of 2025. The petitioner's application was
rejected by the impugned order dated 18.12.2025 whereby Misc. Case No. 7
of 2025 instituted by the petitioner was dismissed and the petitioner is
aggrieved by that order only. Execution Case No.08 of 2008 was filed by the
decree holders - the opposite parties no. 1, 2 and 3 against the judgment
debtor – the opposite party No.4 State Bank Of India and not against the
SCCR No. 22 of 2025
7
petitioner - State of U.P. Execution Case No. 08 of 2008 has been finally
decided against State Bank of India only by the order dated 02.01.2026. The
order dated 02.01.2026 has not been passed against the State of U.P. and it
does not cause any prejudice to the State of U.P. Therefore, the State has no
grievance against the order dated 02.01.2026 and, therefore, the State has
rightly not challenged this order.
15. Regarding the other preliminary objection, the learned Additional
Advocate General has submitted that the fact of filing of a Regular Suit for
declaration does not in any manner affect the legality and validity of the
impugned order dated 16.12.2025 rejecting the petitioner's application under
Order XXI Rule 99 read with Rule 101 CPC and, therefore, this fact is not at
all relevant for adjudication of instant revision.
16. Having considered the preliminary objection raised by the learned
counsel for the opposite party Nos.1, 2 and 3 and the submissions advanced
by the learned Additional Advocate General in reply thereto, I am satisfied
that the scope of the instant SCC revision is regarding validity of the order
dated 16.12.2025 passed in Misc. Case No. 7 of 2025 rejecting the State's
application under Order XXI Rule 99 read with Rule 101 CPC as not
maintainable and, therefore, the State need not challenge the order dated
02.01.2026 passed in Execution Case No. 8 of 2008. Further, the fact of
filing of a regular suit for declaration is not at all relevant as it does not
affect the validity of the impugned order dated 16.12.2025 passed in Misc.
Case No. 7 of 2025. Therefore, non-disclosure of filing of a regular suit
cannot be said to be concealment of any material fact affecting the
entertainability of the civil revision. Therefore, I find no force in both the
preliminary objections raised by the learned Counsel for the opposite party
nos. 1 to 3 and, accordingly, both the preliminary objections are rejected.
17. Shri Manoj Kumar Mishra, the learned counsel for the opposite party
Nos.1, 2 and 3 has submitted that the State of U.P. was never in possession
of the property and the property was in possession of the tenant Imperial
Bank of India and thereafter, the State Bank Of India. The opposite party
Nos.1, 2 and 3 have obtained possession of the property from their tenant-
State Bank of India in execution proceedings.
18. It is correct that the property was in physical possession of the tenant but
the tenant had taken possession under a lease deed dated 01.04.1923 granted
by Sri. Ram Raghuvir Lal, who himself was the lessee of the property.
Ownership of the property continued to remain vested with the nazool
department of the State Government. Upon expiry of the term of lease, the
lesser-Nazool / State Government gets proprietary possession of the property
SCCR No. 22 of 2025
8
and also acquires the right to recover physical possession of the property.
Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Brahmdeo Chaudhary (Supra), the application filed by the petitioner –
State of U. P. under Order XXI Rule 99 read with Rule 101 C.P.C. was
maintainable and it has wrongly been rejected as not maintainable.
19. The learned counsel for the opposite party Nos.1, 2 and 3 has advanced
detailed submissions, but he could not dispute the submission of learned
Additional Advocate General that the application under Order XXI Rule 99
read with Rule 101 CPC was maintainable and it ought to have been decided
on its merits. Accordingly, I am of the considered view that the patent error
in rejecting the State's application under Order XXI Rule 99 read with Rule
101 C.P.C. as not maintainable.
20. Although the order dated 02.01.2026 passed by the executing Court
mentions that the State has filed an application for deferring the execution
case till disposal of the temporary injunction application filed in the regular
suit and it rejects the same, substantively the order dated 02.01.2026 states
that the execution proceedings already stands completed as the Amin has
submitted a report that possession of the entire building has been handed
over in execution of the decree and it does not make a mention of possession
of vacant land having been handed over to the decree holder. The learned
counsel for the opposite party Nos.1, 2 and 3 have placed before the Court a
copy of a report dated 22.12.2025 submitted by the Court Amin which
makes a mention that possession of the entire property has been handed over
to the decree holder.
21. On 24.12.2025, the executing Court has passed an order wherein the
following directions have been issued:-
(i) The decree holders have been permitted to replace the barbed
wire fencing by iron fencing so as to secure the front portion of
the property situated towards the jail road in the Northern
direction and the Tehsil road in the Southern direction which has
been vacated by the judgment debtor State Bank of India.
(ii) The trial Court has directed removal of a sign board put by
the Nazool department towards the Southern side of the land,
stating that the same has been put up illegally. Copies of the
orders dated 23.12.2025 24.12.2025 passed by the executing
Court have been ordered to be sent to the following persons
through special messenger immediately:-
SCCR No. 22 of 2025
9
(i) State Bank Of India, Regional Office,
Ayodhya (Judgement Dettor)
(ii) District Magistrate, Ayodhya.
(iii) S.S.P., Ayodhya
(iv) Naib Nazool Tehsildar, Ayodhya
(v) Police Post In-charge, Civil Lines, Ayodhya
22. Strangely, the Presiding Officer of the executing Court has written a
letter dated 24.12.2025 addressed to the aforesaid five authorities stating that
possession of a major portion of the land has been delivered to the decree
holder but proceedings for execution in respect of building was pending. The
Presiding Officer has written in the letter that applications under Order XXI
Rule 97 CPC and under Order XXI Rule 99 CPC filed by the State have
already been rejected and no stay order has been passed by the High Court or
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in this regard. The Presiding Officer sent copies
of the orders dated 23.12.2025 and 24.12.2025 with the letter stating that in
case any person creates any obstacle in possession of the property,
proceedings under various provisions of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita will be
instituted against him. The letter states that the copies of the orders were
being made available to the authorities concerned so that they may ensure
compliance of the order.
23. The aforesaid conduct of the Presiding Officer of the executing Court
indicates that the officer has gone beyond his jurisdiction, apparently, in
order to provide undue benefit to the opposite party Nos.1, 2 and 3.
24. The learned counsel for the opposite party Nos.1, 2 and 3 has produced a
copy of an order dated 08.12.2025 passed by this Court in Matter under
Article 227 No.7028 of 2025 whereby this Court had dismissed a petition
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India filed by the opposite party
No.4 - State Bank Of India challenging the validity of an order dated
14.11.2025 passed by the District Judge, Ayodhya rejecting Transfer
Application No.167 of 2025 filed by the State Bank of India seeking transfer
of execution case on the ground that the conduct of the Presiding Officer of
the Court had given a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the judgment
debtor that he was biased in favour of the decree holders and the judgment
debtor would not get justice from that Officer. At that time, this Court was
not satisfied about the apprehension of bias of the Presiding Officer of the
Court from the material available before the Court up to that stage. However,
having gone through the subsequent orders passed by the Presiding Officer
SCCR No. 22 of 2025
10
of the executing Court, I am prima facie satisfied that the Presiding Officer
has he has wrongly rejected the State's application under Order XXI Rule 99
read with Rule 101 C.P.C. and he has acted in a biased and partisan manner
in passing the orders in execution proceedings and sending letters to the
authorities so as to give an undue benefit to the decree holders.
25. In view of the foregoing discussion, the revision is allowed. The
impugned order dated 16.12.2025 passed by the Special Judge E.C.
Act/Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No.4, Ayodhya in
Miscellaneous Civil Case No.7 of 2025 is hereby set-aside. Keeping in view
the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the matter is remanded to
the District Judge, Ayodhya who shall decide it himself and shall not
transfer to any other Court.
26. Keeping in view the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner
that out of a total of 1,74,000 sq. ft. land leased by Nazool in the year 1876,
only about 38,000 sq. ft. has been made free hold and the remaining 83,000
sq. ft. has not been converted into free hold and the lease hold rights in
respect of the said land already stand expired in the year 1975, it is provided
that till decision of the application under Order XXI Rule 99 read with Rule
101 CPC, the parties shall maintain status-quo regarding the entire property
in dispute, shall not change its nature by raising any construction thereon
and shall not create any third party interest.
27. Let a copy of this order be placed before the Hon'ble Administrative
Judge for District- Ayodhya for his information and necessary action, if any.
January 3, 2026
-Amit K-
(Subhash Vidyarthi,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
AMIT KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad,
Lucknow Bench
Checking your session…