Allahabad High Court
SMT ARCHANA GUPTA AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 6 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
No parallel writ proceedings under Article 226 are permissible while the civil appeal is pending; the petitioners must seek impleadment as successors in the appeal.
Summary
The petitioners purchased a property from the original owner, Hari Singh Kushwaha, after a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction was passed against Om Prakash in 2021. Om Prakash appealed the decree, and while his second appeal was pending, the court ordered that no third‑party rights could be created over the property. The petitioners claimed that their title, created by purchase before the order, should be protected and alleged interference by the respondent. The High Court held that the matter was sub‑judice and that the petitioners could only seek clarification by filing an application for impleadment as successors or through the original owner, not by a parallel writ under Article 226. Consequently, the petition was consigned to the record, effectively dismissing it.
Issues considered
- Whether a writ petition under Article 226 can be entertained to protect a third‑party right when a civil appeal concerning the same property is pending.
- Whether the petitioners can claim protection of their title without seeking impleadment in the pending appeal.
Legislation cited
- Constitution of India — s. Article 226
Subjects
- property rights
- permanent injunction
- third‑party rights
- sub judice
- Article 226
- impleadment
- civil appeal
- interim protection
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 35812 of 2026
Smt Archana Gupta And Another
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 6 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Santosh Yadav
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.
Court No. - 1
HON'BLE AJIT KUMAR, J.
HON'BLE SIDDHARTH NANDAN, J.
1. Heard Sri Santosh Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioners and
learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
2. Petitioner claims to have purchased property from the erstwhile owner,
who had instituted Original Suit No. 173 of 1979 against one Om Prakash
seeking a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction. It is sought to be
contended that after the decree was passed on 19.03.2021, Om Prakash
unsuccessfully contested the Civil Appeal No.19 of 2021, which was
dismissed on 05.12.2022. Petitioner purchased the property from the
original owner, Hari Singh Kushwaha on 24.12.2022. However, in the
meanwhile, defendant-respondent Om Prakash filed Second Appeal No.
203 of 2022 against the decree of permanent prohibitory injunction in
which the Court while admitting the appeal, passed an order to exchange
the pleadings and further provided, vide order dated 06.04.2023, till the
next date of listing, no third party rights shall be created over the property
in question.
3. According to the petitioner, therefore, the right in the property had
already been created in his favor by the original owner as vendor, prior to
passing of the order by this Court in the pending Second Appeal and it is
on this basis that the respondent-appellant is interfering with the
possession of the petitioner.
4. In our considered view, once the matter is sub judice before this Court
in the Second Appeal and interim protection has been granted, petitioner
WRIC No. 35812 of 2026
2
may seek appropriate clarification either by filing an application seeking
impleadment as a successor of the original owner or through original
owner, who is already a party to the Second Appeal. No parallel
proceedings can be permitted to be pursued under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India for granting protection to the petitioner against the
order passed by this court in pending Second Appeal.
5. Subject to the aforesaid liberty, petition is consigned to record
(Siddharth Nandan,J.) (Ajit Kumar,J.)
September 16, 2026
Junaid
Digitally signed by :-
JUNAID AHMAD
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…