Rajneesh Mishra & Anr. v. State Of U.P. And 9 Other
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
With these observations and directions, petition stands disposed of
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 O. 39 r. 2A
Key paragraphs
- Para 66. With these observations and directions, petition stands disposed of. October 10, 2025 Kirti (Swarupama Chaturvedi,J.) (Ajit Kumar,J.) SMT KIRTI MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Judgment
Heard Mohd. Sadab Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Pradeep Kumar Shahi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State respondents.
By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, petitioner has prayed for a writ of mandamus to command the local police authorities not to interfere with the peaceful possession of the petitioner at the instance of the contesting respondents/defendants in the suit and to ensure strict compliance of the Circular Letter no. 10 of 2023 dated
11.3.2023 issued by the Director General of Police, Uttar Pradesh pursuant to an order of this Court dated 16.2.2023 in Writ C No. 1266 of
Per contra it is argued by learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel Mr. Shahi that since the petitioner has already instituted a suit and is enjoying temporary injunction order passed by the trial court which he claims to be still operating, any interference by the private parties with the help of police can always be checked by the court concerned in the event petitioner moves an application under Order 39 Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Upon a pointed query being made, learned counsel for the petitioner fairly admitted that he has yet not filed any miscellaneous application under Order 39 Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure. In the circumstances, while the petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy 2 WRIC No. 34421 of 2025 available to move a miscellaneous application under Order 39 Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure before the trial court concerned to get the order of temporary injunction complied with, we see no justification to interfere with the matter at this stage drawing a parallel proceedings.
In the circumstances while we decline to grant indulgence in the matter at this stage, we still issue a direction to the effect that in the event, petitioner moves a miscellaneous application under Order 39 Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure within four weeks from today, the trial court will looking into and consider the same and will ensure that temporary injunction order is strictly complied with. If necessary, it will also issue necessary direction to police authorities to honor the order of temporary injunction so as to maintain the majesty of the court and to ensure also that no untoward incident takes place only for the reason that defendants try to violate the temporary injunction order. The trial court will also consider the Circular issued by the Director General of Police, Uttar Pradesh in the light of the direction of this Court in Writ C No. 1266 of
Operative part
With these observations and directions, petition stands disposed of. October 10, 2025 Kirti (Swarupama Chaturvedi,J.) (Ajit Kumar,J.) SMT KIRTI MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: With these observations and directions, petition stands disposed of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — O. 39 r. 2A.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.