Dr.Priyanka Verma & Anr. v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt

Heard Shri Vinay Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Vakalatnama has been filed by Shri Prashant Shukla, Advocate on behalf of respondent no.5. The dispute raised in the present case pertains to House No.570/S-240, Sainik Nagar, Geetapalli, police station Krishna Nagar, Lucknow which is alleged to have been purchased by the petitioner. The respondent no.5 on the other hand claims his ownership on the basis that the property is his ancestral property and the same has been devolved upon him through succession. It has been further submitted that the dispute is pending before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Malihabad, Lucknow at the behest of respondent no.5 who has filed a Civil Suit No.593/2025. It has further been submitted that on the application for interim relief by means of order dated 14.5.2025 learned trial court has passed an order of status quo. A perusal of the said order would clearly indicate that both the parties have claimed the actual physical possession of the disputed property.

Considering the rival contentions the trial court is of the view that to resolve the dispute status quo should be maintained. It is in the aforesaid circumstances that the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner stating that despite passing of the order dated 14.5.2025, the private respondents along with association of police have forcibly evicted him from the disputed property and the police has also sealed the said property and, accordingly, a prayer has been made to direct the opposite parties to unlock the house of the petitioner. Respondents have contested the said petition and submitted that any order can be passed only after determining the aspect of the possession. He submits that without recording any finding pertaining to possession no order can be passed as has been prayed by the petitioner and it is stated that the said issue is a disputed question of fact which is evident from the order of the trial court dated 14.5.2025.

We have given our anxious consideration to the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the present dispute is engaging the attention of the learned trial court in suit no.593/2025 which was filed at the behest of respondent no.5. On the application of interim injunction, detailed order has been passed on 14.5.2025 in which it has been clearly recorded that both the parties have stated to be in actual physical possession of the disputed property and at the interim stage learned trial court has not recorded any categorical finding with regard to the possession but passed an order directing the parties to maintain status quo. In case there is violation of status quo there is appropriate remedy to either of the parties to move an appropriate application under Order 39 Rule 2 A of the CPC and adduce evidence in this regard and only after considering material available on record trial court would be at liberty to pass an appropriate order in this regard.

The aspect of violation of status - quo itself involves determination of disputed questions of fact for which purposes the matter ought to be duly considered and decided by the trial court after considering the evidence on record. Such disputed questions cannot be determined in writ proceedings. In proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, disputed question of fact as raised by the parties in the present case cannot be decided specially considering the fact that the matter is pending before the trial court. This Court would not interfere at this stage with regard to the disputed question of fact engaging the attention of the learned trial court. Subject to the aforesaid observations, petition is dismissed. Order Date :- 23.6.2025 (Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J.) (Alok Mathur,J.) MANISH SAXENA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench