Allahabad High Court
NEERAJ SHUKLAversusSTATE OF UP AND 5 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
Violation of a temporary injunction must be remedied by a Miscellaneous Application under Order XXXIX Rule 2‑A of the CPC, not by a mandamus directing police action.
Summary
The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking a mandamus directing the Kanpur Police Commissioner to enforce a temporary injunction granted in his civil suit, alleging that the respondent had dispossessed him despite the injunction. The court noted that the temporary injunction included a status‑quo clause and that any violation of such an order must be remedied by filing a Miscellaneous Application under Order XXXIX Rule 2‑A of the Code of Civil Procedure. Accordingly, the court declined to issue a direction to the police, emphasizing that law‑enforcement agencies should not intervene in a private civil dispute except for maintaining public order. The court granted the petitioner liberty to move the appropriate CPC application, directing the trial court to conduct a survey and decide the matter within a stipulated time. The writ petition was therefore disposed of without granting the relief sought.
Issues considered
- Whether a High Court can issue a mandamus directing the police to enforce a temporary injunction granted in a civil suit
- Whether the appropriate remedy for violation of a temporary injunction is a Miscellaneous Application under Order XXXIX Rule 2‑A CPC
Legislation cited
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. Order XXXIX Rule 2-A
Subjects
- Article 226
- mandamus
- temporary injunction
- status quo
- Order XXXIX Rule 2-A
- Civil Procedure
- police direction
- high court writ
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 35797 of 2026
Neeraj Shukla
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of Up And 5 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Vinay Bhushan Upadhyay
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.
Court No. - 1
HON'BLE AJIT KUMAR, J.
HON'BLE SIDDHARTH NANDAN, J.
1. Heard Sri Vinay Bhushan Upadhyay, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
2. By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution,
the petitioner has prayed for a direction in the nature of mandamus
commanding the police authorities, namely, the Commissioner of Police,
Kanpur Nagar, to take cognizance of the representation made by the
petitioner and take appropriate action in accordance with law.
3. It transpires from the representation dated 11.07.2026 that the
petitioner has already instituted a suit being O.S. No. 1108 of 2025 for a
decree of permanent prohibitory injunction against respondent No. 6, and
despite an order of temporary injunction having been passed in his favour
on 26.04.2025, whereby an order of status quo was passed, he has
nevertheless been dispossessed.
4. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that, though the defendant-
respondents have also instituted a suit bearing No. 1108 of 2025, no
temporary injunction has been granted in favour of the respondents. It is
thus sought to be contended that the defendant-respondents in the suit
could not have dispossessed the petitioner.
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and perused
the records, in our considered view, where there is a violation of an order
of temporary injunction, the only remedy available to the
WRIC No. 35797 of 2026
2
petitioner/plaintiff, who is the beneficiary of the temporary injunction, is
to file a Miscellaneous Application under Order XXXIX Rule 2-A of the
Code of Civil Procedure.
6. We have perused the order of temporary injunction granted in favour of
the petitioner and find that it contains an order for maintaining status quo
with regard to the factual state of affairs existing at the spot. Therefore,
the same can be determined only on the basis of the report of an Amin
Commissioner, if appointed upon an application filed by the plaintiff
under Order XXXIX Rule 2-A of the Code of Civil Procedure.
7. In the circumstances, we decline to grant any indulgence in the matter
where the petitioner seeks a direction to the Police Commissioner to look
into the grievance raised by him in his representation.
8. However, we grant liberty to the petitioner to move an application
under Order XXXIX Rule 2-A of the Code of Civil Procedure in the
pending suit. In the event any such application is filed, the concerned
Trial Court shall cause a survey of the spot in question to be conducted
within four weeks and thereafter proceed to decide the Miscellaneous
Application under Order XXXIX Rule 2-A of the Code of Civil
Procedure strictly in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible,
preferably within a further period of two months.
9. We may clarify that, while the private parties are litigating the matter
before the civil court and a serious civil dispute is pending between them,
neither the police administration, nor the revenue authorities are expected
to interfere in the civil dispute between the parties, except where the
circumstances so warrant for the maintenance of law and order.
10, Accordingly, this writ petition stands disposed of.
(Siddharth Nandan,J.) (Ajit Kumar,J.)
September 16, 2026
piyush
Digitally signed by :-
PIYUSH KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…