Phool Chandra Sahu v. Rakesh Kumar Mishra
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Judgment
Heard learned counsel for the parties. By means of present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, petitioner has prayed for following relief: "(1) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to not to create the hindrance in the construction work raised by the petitioner in the property/ house legally owned and possessed by the petitioner. " (2) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to consider and decide the application dated 5.5.2025 made by the petitioner within specified time to be fixed by this Court by passing speaking and reasoned order. " It is contended by learned Standing Counsel that the dispute between the parties are pending before the trial court and hence he may seek appropriate remedy by moving appropriate application for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rule 2 A of the Code of Civil Procedure. In view of above, we see no justification to grant indulgence in the matter. Subject to aforesaid liberty, this petition is consigned to record. October 14, 2025 Sanjeev ( Swarupama Chaturvedi,J.) (Ajit Kumar,J.) SANJEEV RANJAN SANJEEV RANJAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
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.