Smt. Arti Jain v. Vinay Kumar Trivedi and others) whereby

Petitioner :- Smt. Arti Jain Respondent :- Civil Judge (J.D) Hawali Lko. And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ravi Shanker Tewari,Sheo Pal Singh Hon'ble Manjive Shukla,J.

1. Heard Sri Ravi Shanker Tewari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.

2. The instant petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed challenging therein, the order dated 30.5.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hawali, Lucknow in Civil Suit No.1590 of 2025 (Smt. Arti Jain Vs. Vinay Kumar Trivedi and others) whereby, the learned Civil Judge had issued notice to the opposite parties and had provided that without hearing the opposite parties, the interim injunction cannot be granted in favour of the petitioner.

3. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the petitioner had purchased Plot Nos.27 and 28 from one Mr. Pradeep Verma, who was admittedly owner of Gata No.703, measuring .278 hectare, Village Sarosa Bharosa, Tehsil Sarojani Nagar, District Lucknow. Mr. Pradeep Verma was owner of Gata No.703 and Smt. Ram Dulari was owner of Gata Nos.701 and 702. Mr. Pradeep Verma and Smt. Ram Dulari started plotting by assimilating their land of the aforesaid Gata numbers. Since the petitioner had purchased Plot Nos. 27 and 28 which are part of the land of Gata No.703 therefore, the sale deed in respect of the said plots was executed by Mr. Pradeep Verma. The petitioner after purchasing the plots had erected the boundary wall but the Respondents No. 2 to 5, on the basis of an agreement to sale in respect of the land of Gata Nos.701 and 702, had demolished the said boundary wall and had erected a new boundary wall in its place.

4. In the aforesaid circumstances, the petitioner herein filed Civil Suit No.1590 of 2025 (Smt. Arti Jain Vs. Vinay Kumar Trivedi and others) in the court of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hawali, Lucknow and also filed an application for temporary injunction under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 C.P.C. The learned Civil Judge without considering the issues in respect of the urgency in the matter and the balance of convenience, had passed an order on 30.5.2025 whereby, he had issued notice to the opposite parties and had provided that the matter of temporary injunction would be decided only after hearing all the parties.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has argued that the demolition of the petitioner's boundary wall had already taken place and in its place, a new boundary wall is existing as on date but the fact remains that the petitioner had categorically demonstrated before the learned Civil Judge that she had purchased part of the land of Gata No.703 through a valid sale deed and she had also erected a boundary wall on her plots therefore, there was a prima-facie case in favour of the petitioner and accordingly, the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hawali, Lucknow must have passed some order as an interim measure to the extent that the land of the petitioner belonging to Gata No.703 is not further transferred to any third party as if the third party rights are created by the respondents, that would further complicate the issue and there would be difficulty for the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hawali, Lucknow in deciding the suit in question.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that he is praying for a very limited relief in this writ petition that during such time, the application for temporary injunction filed along with the suit remains pending before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hawali, Lucknow, a direction may be issued by this Court that the land of the petitioner, which is part of the land of Gata No.703, may be protected and it may be provided that the said land may not be transferred in the name of any third person and the status quo as exists today in respect of Gata No.703, to the extent of the land belonging to the petitioner, may be maintained.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, in respect of the maintainability of this writ petition, has relied on the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ram Dhani and others Vs. Raja Ram and others, 2011(5) ADJ 780 (DB) and has submitted that the Division Bench of this Court, in categorical terms, had held that where on the application for interim injunction only notice has been issued, that order would not be revisable and that order can be challenged before the High Court by filing a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

8. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and prima-facie, I find that the claim of the petitioner is for Plot Nos.27 and 28 which are part of the land of Gata No.703. The respondents are claiming some interest in the land of Gata Nos.701 and 702 on the basis of an agreement to sale. Once the respondents are not claiming any right over the land of Gata No.703, this Court is of the view that the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hawali, Lucknow, while issuing notice to the opposite parties, ought have at least passed the order thereby protecting the nature and status of the land belonging to the petitioner which is part of the land of Gata No.703 of Village Sarosa Bharosa.

9. Let notice be issued to Respondents No.2 to 7 returnable within two weeks.

10. List this matter on 23.6.2025 as fresh, in top ten cases.

11. Till the next date of listing, it is provided that the parties to this writ petition shall maintain status quo in respect of the land claimed by the petitioner which is part of the land of Gata No.703 of Village Sarosa Bharosa and shall not transfer the said land to any third party.

12. It is made clear that on the next date, this interim order would be extended only after hearing the parties' counsels. Order Date :- 5.6.2025 Salim

Petitioner :- Smt. Arti Jain Respondent :- Civil Judge (J.D) Hawali Lko. And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ravi Shanker Tewari,Sheo Pal Singh Hon'ble Manjive Shukla,J.

1. Heard Sri Ravi Shanker Tewari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.

2. The instant petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed challenging therein, the order dated 30.5.2025 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hawali, Lucknow in Civil Suit No.1590 of 2025 (Smt. Arti Jain Vs. Vinay Kumar Trivedi and others) whereby, the learned Civil Judge had issued notice to the opposite parties and had provided that without hearing the opposite parties, the interim injunction cannot be granted in favour of the petitioner.

3. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the petitioner had purchased Plot Nos.27 and 28 from one Mr. Pradeep Verma, who was admittedly owner of Gata No.703, measuring .278 hectare, Village Sarosa Bharosa, Tehsil Sarojani Nagar, District Lucknow. Mr. Pradeep Verma was owner of Gata No.703 and Smt. Ram Dulari was owner of Gata Nos.701 and 702. Mr. Pradeep Verma and Smt. Ram Dulari started plotting by assimilating their land of the aforesaid Gata numbers. Since the petitioner had purchased Plot Nos. 27 and 28 which are part of the land of Gata No.703 therefore, the sale deed in respect of the said plots was executed by Mr. Pradeep Verma. The petitioner after purchasing the plots had erected the boundary wall but the Respondents No. 2 to 5, on the basis of an agreement to sale in respect of the land of Gata Nos.701 and 702, had demolished the said boundary wall and had erected a new boundary wall in its place.

4. In the aforesaid circumstances, the petitioner herein filed Civil Suit No.1590 of 2025 (Smt. Arti Jain Vs. Vinay Kumar Trivedi and others) in the court of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hawali, Lucknow and also filed an application for temporary injunction under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 C.P.C. The learned Civil Judge without considering the issues in respect of the urgency in the matter and the balance of convenience, had passed an order on 30.5.2025 whereby, he had issued notice to the opposite parties and had provided that the matter of temporary injunction would be decided only after hearing all the parties.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has argued that the demolition of the petitioner's boundary wall had already taken place and in its place, a new boundary wall is existing as on date but the fact remains that the petitioner had categorically demonstrated before the learned Civil Judge that she had purchased part of the land of Gata No.703 through a valid sale deed and she had also erected a boundary wall on her plots therefore, there was a prima-facie case in favour of the petitioner and accordingly, the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hawali, Lucknow must have passed some order as an interim measure to the extent that the land of the petitioner belonging to Gata No.703 is not further transferred to any third party as if the third party rights are created by the respondents, that would further complicate the issue and there would be difficulty for the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hawali, Lucknow in deciding the suit in question.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that he is praying for a very limited relief in this writ petition that during such time, the application for temporary injunction filed along with the suit remains pending before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hawali, Lucknow, a direction may be issued by this Court that the land of the petitioner, which is part of the land of Gata No.703, may be protected and it may be provided that the said land may not be transferred in the name of any third person and the status quo as exists today in respect of Gata No.703, to the extent of the land belonging to the petitioner, may be maintained.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, in respect of the maintainability of this writ petition, has relied on the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ram Dhani and others Vs. Raja Ram and others, 2011(5) ADJ 780 (DB) and has submitted that the Division Bench of this Court, in categorical terms, had held that where on the application for interim injunction only notice has been issued, that order would not be revisable and that order can be challenged before the High Court by filing a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

8. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and prima-facie, I find that the claim of the petitioner is for Plot Nos.27 and 28 which are part of the land of Gata No.703. The respondents are claiming some interest in the land of Gata Nos.701 and 702 on the basis of an agreement to sale. Once the respondents are not claiming any right over the land of Gata No.703, this Court is of the view that the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hawali, Lucknow, while issuing notice to the opposite parties, ought have at least passed the order thereby protecting the nature and status of the land belonging to the petitioner which is part of the land of Gata No.703 of Village Sarosa Bharosa.

9. Let notice be issued to Respondents No.2 to 7 returnable within two weeks.

10. List this matter on 23.6.2025 as fresh, in top ten cases.

11. Till the next date of listing, it is provided that the parties to this writ petition shall maintain status quo in respect of the land claimed by the petitioner which is part of the land of Gata No.703 of Village Sarosa Bharosa and shall not transfer the said land to any third party.

12. It is made clear that on the next date, this interim order would be extended only after hearing the parties' counsels. Order Date :- 5.6.2025 Salim