Allahabad High Court
PRABHAWATI DEVIversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 22 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- MANISH KUMAR NIGAM
Holding
The writ petition is not maintainable for execution of the revenue court order; the petitioner must seek relief under the CPC.
Summary
The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking compliance of an injunction order issued by a trial court under Section 116 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, alleging that the order had not been implemented. The respondent's standing counsel raised a preliminary objection, contending that such orders are executable under the Code of Civil Procedure and that the petition was not maintainable for execution of revenue court orders, citing the Division Bench judgments in Manbhavati v. State of U.P. (2020 1 AWC 789A) and Brij Bhushan Rai v. State of U.P. (Writ C No. 7863 of 2018). The High Court agreed that it would not interfere with the execution process and dismissed the writ petition, directing the petitioner to pursue the appropriate remedy under Order 39 Rule 2A of the CPC. The petition was therefore disposed of, with liberty granted to the petitioner to seek relief through the prescribed procedural route.
Issues considered
- Whether a writ petition is maintainable for the execution of an injunction order passed under Section 116 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006
- Whether the petitioner should instead pursue execution under the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, specifically Order 39 Rule 2A
Legislation cited
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. Order 39 Rule 2A
- U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 — s. 116
Subjects
- injunction
- U.P. Revenue Code
- Section 116
- execution of order
- writ petition
- Code of Civil Procedure
- Order 39 Rule 2A
- preliminary objection
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 17805 of 2026
Prabhawati Devi
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 22 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Neeraj Singh, Pradeep Kumar Pandey
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Azad Rai, C.S.C.
Court No. - 36
HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR NIGAM, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
2. This petition has been filed for compliance of injunction order granted by the
trial Court in proceedings under section 116 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006
in favour of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the said order has not
been complied with and is being violated.
3. Learned Standing Counsel has raised a preliminary objection that order
passed under Section 116 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 is an executable
order as the provisions of C.P.C. are applicable to the proceedings under
Section 116 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 and petitioner has remedy of
moving an application under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC. It has been further
submitted by learned Standing Counsel that in view of the judgment of
Division Bench of this Court in case of Manbhavati v. State of U.P. and
others reported in 2020 1 AWC 789A and Writ C No. 7863 of 2018 (Brij
Bhushan Rai v. State of U.P. and 6 others) the writ petition is not
maintainable for execution of orders passed by Revenue Court.
4. In view of the same, I am not inclined to interfere in the matter.
5. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to
pursue the remedy, as available to him, under the law.
6. Certified copy of the orders, if any, be returned to learned counsel for the
petitioner after retaining xerox copy of the same on record.
May 14, 2026
Rishabh
(Manish Kumar Nigam,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
RISHABH KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…