Praveen Singh & others v. Ranveer Singh & others) filed U

1. Heard Sri Anoop Kumar Upadhyay, learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for State-respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 19 and Sri Rajendra Singh Chauhan, Advocate who has filed Vakalatnama on behalf of respondent No. 7 which is taken on record.

2. In light of the proposed order, notices to rest of the private respondents are dispensed with.

3. By means of present writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 07.02.2025 and 06.07.2025 passed by trial court / Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Lalganj, Raebareli in Case No. 4467/2024 (Praveen Singh & others Vs. Ranveer Singh & others) filed U/S 144 of U.P. Revenue Code,

4. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the present dispute pertains to the land situated at Gata No. 123, 304, 528 and Gata No. 66 situated at Village Datauli Lalganj and Gata No. 91 & 300 min situated at Datauli Lalganj Andar Pargana Dalmau, Tehsil Lalganj, District Reabareili. It has been stated that the said land was recorded in the name of Jagatpal Singh, and the petitioner and the private respondent have common ancestry. Jagatpal Singh had two sons: Yadu Nath Singh and Chandrachur Singh.

5. After the death of Jagatpal Singh, i.e. the predecessor in the interest of the private respondents on the basis of an unregistered will has got the mutation of the property in his own name by an order dated 8/7/1985. When the 2 WRIC No. 8151 of 2025 petitioner came to know about this fact, he had filed an application for recall of the order dated 8/7/1985. The order dated 8/7/1985 was recalled and the matter was restored. Subsequently, another order dated 9/1/2009 was passed, again mutating the land in the name of Chandrachur Singh.

6. The petitioner being aggrieved by the said order had filed an appeal before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Lalganj, on 9/1/2009, which was allowed by an order dated 15/11/2016 and the order dated 9/1/2009 passed by the Tehsildar was set aside. Against the order dated 15/11/2016, Shri Chandrachur Singh, (predecessor in interest of the private respondents) filed a revision before the Additional Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow, which was allowed on 30/6/2023 and the matter was remanded to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. Against the order dated 30/6/2023, the petitioner had filed a writ petition before this court, being Writ C No. 6970 of 2023 (Praveen Pratap Singh and another Vs. State of U.P. and others), which was disposed of finally by an order dated 18/8/2023, granting liberty to the petitioner to file a regular suit before the appellate authority and till the disposal of the application for interim relief, the parties were directed to maintain status quo as existing on the said date.

7. It is as per the direction of this Court dated 18/8/2023 that a suit proceeding was instituted by the petitioner under section 144 of the UP Revenue Code for a declaration of their rights in the disputed property. Along with the plaint, the petitioner also moved an application for interim relief, seeking a direction that a receiver should be appointed for the disputed property during the said proceedings. The application for interim relief was decided by an order dated 7/2/2025. According to the said order, both parties were heard, and their written submissions were duly considered. After a detailed examination of the evidence and considering the fact that there is no dispute regarding possession of the disputed property by the respondents on the basis of a Vehami batwara (oral settlement), the court directed the parties to maintain status quo and restrained them from changing the nature of the land.

8. The petitioner was aggrieved by the order dated 7/2/2025 and moved an application for recall. The said application was moved on the ground that on 7/2/2025, there was a call for boycott by the Local Bar Association , therefore, no transaction was carried out by the court, and the next date fixed in the matter was 14/2/2025. 3 WRIC No. 8151 of 2025

9. In the meanwhile, the presiding officer had changed, and consequently, the new presiding officer considered the application for recall. The application for recall was dealt in detail and all the facts were re-examined. While rejecting the application for recall, by an order 16.07.2025, a finding was returned that on 02.07.2025 counsel for both the parties were heard. It was further taken into account that both the parteis had filed their written submissions which were on record. It further took into account the fact that there was no dispute between the parties with regard to possession but the grievance of the petitioner was with regard to the non-appointment of a receiver.

10. Detailed consideration of the mater is evident where the trial court by rejecting the application for recall which returned a finding that once there is no dispute with regard to the possession of the property, which is with the defendants, then their rights would be seriously prejudiced in case a receiver was appointed, and therefore it was of the view that there was no infirmity in the previous order dated 07.02.2025 and also was of the view that there was no necessity of appointing a receiver.

11. Accordingly, the court was further of the view that an interim order cannot be subjected to a review, and no such provision exists and the application of the petitioner even otherwise, for recall / review was not maintainable and therefore rejected the same. In the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity of both orders i.e. 07.02.2025 as well as 16.07.2025.

12. From the perusal of the aforesaid orders, it is clear that by passing the order dated 07.02.2025, the trial court had looked into the arguments of the petitioner as well as the respondents in great detail and it is only after analysis of the entire facts, the order has been passed directing the parties to maintain status quo.

13. From perusal of the order, it is further evident that written arguments were submitted by the parties, which have been duly considered, and their contentions have also been dealt with in detail. In the application for recall, it has categorically been stated that the parties were heard on 02.07.2025 and we see no reason as to take any view contrary to the findings returned by the trial court with regard to the hearing being afforded to the parties on

07.02.2025. 4 WRIC No. 8151 of 2025

14. Even in the present writ petition, there is no averment that the parties did not appear before the trial court and did not advance any arguments. This Court is of the considered view that even if there is a call for boycott by the Local Bar Association, it does not preclude the court from conducting judicial work and even if any judicial work is conducted, it cannot be faulted on account of the fact that there is a call for a boycott by the Local Bar Association. Accordingly, this Court does not find any infirmity in the impugned order.

15. Though the case of the petitioners is that no hearing took place on

07.02.2025 but this Court is of the considered view that the said averment is false and misconceived and only to seek an undue advantage for setting aside of the order dated 07.02.2025, inasmuch as per the said order, though protection was given to the petitioner, but the receiver was not appointed by the trial court. Accordingly, This Court does not find any infirmity in either of the order dated 07.02.2025 or in the subsequent order dated 16.07.2025, this Court disapproves the conduct of the petitioners for filing the recall application as well as the writ petition on false premises, wherein he has claimed that no hearing took place on 07.02.2025. From both the impugned orders, this Court finds that the said submissions is false and contrary to the recod and accordingly the writ petition is dismissed with a cost to Rs. 5,000/- to be deposited with the District Legal Service Authority, Raebareli within next one week.

16. The trial court shall ensure compliance of the said orders. September 3, 2025 Ravi/ (Alok Mathur,J.) RAVI SHANKAR SRIVASTAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard Sri Anoop Kumar Upadhyay, learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for State-respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 19 and Sri Rajendra Singh Chauhan, Advocate who has filed Vakalatnama on behalf of respondent No. 7 which is taken on record.

2. In light of the proposed order, notices to rest of the private respondents are dispensed with.

3. By means of present writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 07.02.2025 and 06.07.2025 passed by trial court / Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Lalganj, Raebareli in Case No. 4467/2024 (Praveen Singh & others Vs. Ranveer Singh & others) filed U/S 144 of U.P. Revenue Code,

4. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the present dispute pertains to the land situated at Gata No. 123, 304, 528 and Gata No. 66 situated at Village Datauli Lalganj and Gata No. 91 & 300 min situated at Datauli Lalganj Andar Pargana Dalmau, Tehsil Lalganj, District Reabareili. It has been stated that the said land was recorded in the name of Jagatpal Singh, and the petitioner and the private respondent have common ancestry. Jagatpal Singh had two sons: Yadu Nath Singh and Chandrachur Singh.

5. After the death of Jagatpal Singh, i.e. the predecessor in the interest of the private respondents on the basis of an unregistered will has got the mutation of the property in his own name by an order dated 8/7/1985. When the 2 WRIC No. 8151 of 2025 petitioner came to know about this fact, he had filed an application for recall of the order dated 8/7/1985. The order dated 8/7/1985 was recalled and the matter was restored. Subsequently, another order dated 9/1/2009 was passed, again mutating the land in the name of Chandrachur Singh.

6. The petitioner being aggrieved by the said order had filed an appeal before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Lalganj, on 9/1/2009, which was allowed by an order dated 15/11/2016 and the order dated 9/1/2009 passed by the Tehsildar was set aside. Against the order dated 15/11/2016, Shri Chandrachur Singh, (predecessor in interest of the private respondents) filed a revision before the Additional Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow, which was allowed on 30/6/2023 and the matter was remanded to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. Against the order dated 30/6/2023, the petitioner had filed a writ petition before this court, being Writ C No. 6970 of 2023 (Praveen Pratap Singh and another Vs. State of U.P. and others), which was disposed of finally by an order dated 18/8/2023, granting liberty to the petitioner to file a regular suit before the appellate authority and till the disposal of the application for interim relief, the parties were directed to maintain status quo as existing on the said date.

7. It is as per the direction of this Court dated 18/8/2023 that a suit proceeding was instituted by the petitioner under section 144 of the UP Revenue Code for a declaration of their rights in the disputed property. Along with the plaint, the petitioner also moved an application for interim relief, seeking a direction that a receiver should be appointed for the disputed property during the said proceedings. The application for interim relief was decided by an order dated 7/2/2025. According to the said order, both parties were heard, and their written submissions were duly considered. After a detailed examination of the evidence and considering the fact that there is no dispute regarding possession of the disputed property by the respondents on the basis of a Vehami batwara (oral settlement), the court directed the parties to maintain status quo and restrained them from changing the nature of the land.

8. The petitioner was aggrieved by the order dated 7/2/2025 and moved an application for recall. The said application was moved on the ground that on 7/2/2025, there was a call for boycott by the Local Bar Association , therefore, no transaction was carried out by the court, and the next date fixed in the matter was 14/2/2025. 3 WRIC No. 8151 of 2025

9. In the meanwhile, the presiding officer had changed, and consequently, the new presiding officer considered the application for recall. The application for recall was dealt in detail and all the facts were re-examined. While rejecting the application for recall, by an order 16.07.2025, a finding was returned that on 02.07.2025 counsel for both the parties were heard. It was further taken into account that both the parteis had filed their written submissions which were on record. It further took into account the fact that there was no dispute between the parties with regard to possession but the grievance of the petitioner was with regard to the non-appointment of a receiver.

10. Detailed consideration of the mater is evident where the trial court by rejecting the application for recall which returned a finding that once there is no dispute with regard to the possession of the property, which is with the defendants, then their rights would be seriously prejudiced in case a receiver was appointed, and therefore it was of the view that there was no infirmity in the previous order dated 07.02.2025 and also was of the view that there was no necessity of appointing a receiver.

11. Accordingly, the court was further of the view that an interim order cannot be subjected to a review, and no such provision exists and the application of the petitioner even otherwise, for recall / review was not maintainable and therefore rejected the same. In the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity of both orders i.e. 07.02.2025 as well as 16.07.2025.

12. From the perusal of the aforesaid orders, it is clear that by passing the order dated 07.02.2025, the trial court had looked into the arguments of the petitioner as well as the respondents in great detail and it is only after analysis of the entire facts, the order has been passed directing the parties to maintain status quo.

13. From perusal of the order, it is further evident that written arguments were submitted by the parties, which have been duly considered, and their contentions have also been dealt with in detail. In the application for recall, it has categorically been stated that the parties were heard on 02.07.2025 and we see no reason as to take any view contrary to the findings returned by the trial court with regard to the hearing being afforded to the parties on

07.02.2025. 4 WRIC No. 8151 of 2025

14. Even in the present writ petition, there is no averment that the parties did not appear before the trial court and did not advance any arguments. This Court is of the considered view that even if there is a call for boycott by the Local Bar Association, it does not preclude the court from conducting judicial work and even if any judicial work is conducted, it cannot be faulted on account of the fact that there is a call for a boycott by the Local Bar Association. Accordingly, this Court does not find any infirmity in the impugned order.

15. Though the case of the petitioners is that no hearing took place on

07.02.2025 but this Court is of the considered view that the said averment is false and misconceived and only to seek an undue advantage for setting aside of the order dated 07.02.2025, inasmuch as per the said order, though protection was given to the petitioner, but the receiver was not appointed by the trial court. Accordingly, This Court does not find any infirmity in either of the order dated 07.02.2025 or in the subsequent order dated 16.07.2025, this Court disapproves the conduct of the petitioners for filing the recall application as well as the writ petition on false premises, wherein he has claimed that no hearing took place on 07.02.2025. From both the impugned orders, this Court finds that the said submissions is false and contrary to the recod and accordingly the writ petition is dismissed with a cost to Rs. 5,000/- to be deposited with the District Legal Service Authority, Raebareli within next one week.

16. The trial court shall ensure compliance of the said orders. September 3, 2025 Ravi/ (Alok Mathur,J.) RAVI SHANKAR SRIVASTAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench