Chaudhary Faiz Mahmood v. State of U.P. & others ), whereby the Application

1. Heard Shri Mohd. Zaid Khan, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Shri Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents and perused the record.

2. The instant appeal has been preferred under Section 104 read with Order XLIII Rule 1(r) C.P.C. against the judgment and order dated August 11, 2025 passed by learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Barabanki in Civil Suit No.561 of 2025 (Chaudhary Faiz Mahmood v. State of U.P. & others ), whereby the Application 6-GA for interim injunction has been rejected.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant has filed a suit for injunction against the State authorities claiming themself to be the owner of land bearing Gata Nos.2904, 2905, 2907, 3089/2908 on the basis of revenue record for the fasli year 1332, which is equivalent to calendar year 1925, in which the name of appellant's ancestor was recorded. There was a consolidation proceeding initiated in 1960s wherein these land have been included in the consolidation proceeding.

4. Thereafter, an application under Section 38(2) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Revenue Code') has been filed 2 FAFO No. 358 of 2025 by the appellant for correction in the revenue record in July 2024 i.e. almost after a lapse of more than 53 years, which is still pending.

5. Thereafter the appellant filed a suit for permanent injunction in the year 2025 along with an application for interim relief under Order XXXIX, Rule 1 & 2 of the C.P.C., but this application has been rejected vide order dated August 11, 2025, which is under challenge in the instant appeal.

6. Shri Mohd. Zaid Khan, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned order has dealt with prima facie title instead of prima facie case and has not appreciated all the ingredients necessary while deciding the relief of temporary injunction i.e. prima facie balance of convenience and irreparable loss or injury. The court below while dealing with the issue has relied on fasli year 1332 in which it has been specifically stated that the land have been recorded as abaadi, school and still that land recorded as non ZA land.

7. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State respondents vehemently opposed the appeal and submits that the instant lis has been initiated after a lapse of more than 50 years. He further submits that the consolidation proceedings had attained finality and even today the property is recorded in the name of District Board in the revenue records. After the consolidation proceedings had come to an end, the same was never challenged by the appellant and unless and until, the order passed in the consolidation proceedings is set aside and the mutation is also changed, the suit filed by the appellant is not maintainable.

8. He further submits that the application for interim relief under Order XXXIX, Rule 1 & 2 of the C.P.C. filed by the appellant is devoid of merit and has accordingly been rejected.

9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

10. The instant appeal has been filed against an order of rejection on an application for interim relief filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 of the C.P.C.

11. Before proceeding with the matter, relevant part of the Order XXXIX 3 FAFO No. 358 of 2025 Rule 1 & 2 of the C.P.C. is reproduced as under: "1. Cases in which temporary injunction may be granted. —Where in any suit it is proved by affidavit or otherwise— (a) that any property in dispute in a suit is in danger of being wasted, damaged or alienated by any party to the suit, or wrongfully sold in execution of a decree, or (b) that the defendant threatens, or intends, to remove or dispose of his property with a view to defrauding his creditors, (c) that the defendant threatens to dispossess, the plaintiff or otherwise cause injury to the plaintiff in relation to any property in dispute in the suit, the Court may by order grant a temporary injunction to restrain such act, or make such other order for the purpose of staying and preventing the wasting, damaging, alienation, sale, removal or disposition of the property or dispossession of the plaintiff, or otherwise causing injury to the plaintiff in relation to any property in dispute in the suit as the Court thinks fit, until the disposal of the suit or until further orders.

2. Injunction to restrain repetition or continuance of breach. —(1) In any suit for restraining the defendant from committing a breach of contract or other injury of any kind, whether compensation is claimed in the suit or not, the plaintiff may, at any time after the commencement of the suit, and either before or after judgment, apply to the Court for a temporary injunction to restrain the defendant from committing the breach of contract or injury complained of, or any breach of contract or injury of a like kind arising out of the same contract or relating to the same property or right. (2) The Court may by order grant such injunction, on such terms as to the duration of the injunction, keeping an account, giving security, or otherwise, as the Court thinks fit. 2A. Consequence of disobedience or breach of injunction .—(1) In the case of disobedience of any injunction granted or other order made under rule 1 or rule 2 or breach of any of the terms on which the injunction was granted or the order made, 4 FAFO No. 358 of 2025 the Court granting the injunction or making the order, or any Court to which the suit or proceeding is transferred, may order the property of the person guilty of such disobedience or breach to be attached, and may also order such person to be detained in the civil prison for a term not exceeding three months, unless in the meantime the Court directs his release. (2) No attachment made under this rule shall remain in force for more than one year, at the end of which time, if the disobedience or breach continues, the property attached may be sold and out of the proceeds, the Court may award such compensation as it thinks fit to the injured party and shall pay the balance, if any, to the party entitled thereto."

12. On perusal of the above provisions of the C.P.C., it clearly shows that the court can interfere only when a prima facie case is made out, balance of convenience lies in favour of the plaintiff and there is a chance of irreparable loss.

13. However, the consolidation proceedings had initiated in 1960s and after completion of the said proceedings, the ownership of the land in dispute was recorded in the name of District Board in the revenue records. These proceedings had attained finality and had never been challenged by the appellant. It is only after lapse of more than 50 years, an application has been moved by the appellant under Section 38(2) of the Revenue Code, which is still pending.

14. Once the proceedings of consolidation had attained finality and the same has not been challenged and unless and until the revenue record got amended, the relief as sought by the appellant cannot be granted. The court below has rightly rejected the application of the appellant by means of the impugned order.

15. This Court finds that there is no prima facie case made out in favour of the appellant and no balance of convenience lies in favour of the appellant neither any irreparable loss caused to him and in absence of the same, there is no question of granting any interim injunction. This Court does not see any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order. 5 FAFO No. 358 of 2025

16. In view of the above, the instant appeal sans merit and is accordingly dismissed. December 19, 2025 Anupam S/- (Prashant Kumar,J.) ANUPAM SINGH PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard Shri Mohd. Zaid Khan, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Shri Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents and perused the record.

2. The instant appeal has been preferred under Section 104 read with Order XLIII Rule 1(r) C.P.C. against the judgment and order dated August 11, 2025 passed by learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Barabanki in Civil Suit No.561 of 2025 (Chaudhary Faiz Mahmood v. State of U.P. & others ), whereby the Application 6-GA for interim injunction has been rejected.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant has filed a suit for injunction against the State authorities claiming themself to be the owner of land bearing Gata Nos.2904, 2905, 2907, 3089/2908 on the basis of revenue record for the fasli year 1332, which is equivalent to calendar year 1925, in which the name of appellant's ancestor was recorded. There was a consolidation proceeding initiated in 1960s wherein these land have been included in the consolidation proceeding.

4. Thereafter, an application under Section 38(2) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Revenue Code') has been filed 2 FAFO No. 358 of 2025 by the appellant for correction in the revenue record in July 2024 i.e. almost after a lapse of more than 53 years, which is still pending.

5. Thereafter the appellant filed a suit for permanent injunction in the year 2025 along with an application for interim relief under Order XXXIX, Rule 1 & 2 of the C.P.C., but this application has been rejected vide order dated August 11, 2025, which is under challenge in the instant appeal.

6. Shri Mohd. Zaid Khan, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned order has dealt with prima facie title instead of prima facie case and has not appreciated all the ingredients necessary while deciding the relief of temporary injunction i.e. prima facie balance of convenience and irreparable loss or injury. The court below while dealing with the issue has relied on fasli year 1332 in which it has been specifically stated that the land have been recorded as abaadi, school and still that land recorded as non ZA land.

7. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State respondents vehemently opposed the appeal and submits that the instant lis has been initiated after a lapse of more than 50 years. He further submits that the consolidation proceedings had attained finality and even today the property is recorded in the name of District Board in the revenue records. After the consolidation proceedings had come to an end, the same was never challenged by the appellant and unless and until, the order passed in the consolidation proceedings is set aside and the mutation is also changed, the suit filed by the appellant is not maintainable.

8. He further submits that the application for interim relief under Order XXXIX, Rule 1 & 2 of the C.P.C. filed by the appellant is devoid of merit and has accordingly been rejected.

9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

10. The instant appeal has been filed against an order of rejection on an application for interim relief filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 of the C.P.C.

11. Before proceeding with the matter, relevant part of the Order XXXIX 3 FAFO No. 358 of 2025 Rule 1 & 2 of the C.P.C. is reproduced as under: "1. Cases in which temporary injunction may be granted. —Where in any suit it is proved by affidavit or otherwise— (a) that any property in dispute in a suit is in danger of being wasted, damaged or alienated by any party to the suit, or wrongfully sold in execution of a decree, or (b) that the defendant threatens, or intends, to remove or dispose of his property with a view to defrauding his creditors, (c) that the defendant threatens to dispossess, the plaintiff or otherwise cause injury to the plaintiff in relation to any property in dispute in the suit, the Court may by order grant a temporary injunction to restrain such act, or make such other order for the purpose of staying and preventing the wasting, damaging, alienation, sale, removal or disposition of the property or dispossession of the plaintiff, or otherwise causing injury to the plaintiff in relation to any property in dispute in the suit as the Court thinks fit, until the disposal of the suit or until further orders.

2. Injunction to restrain repetition or continuance of breach. —(1) In any suit for restraining the defendant from committing a breach of contract or other injury of any kind, whether compensation is claimed in the suit or not, the plaintiff may, at any time after the commencement of the suit, and either before or after judgment, apply to the Court for a temporary injunction to restrain the defendant from committing the breach of contract or injury complained of, or any breach of contract or injury of a like kind arising out of the same contract or relating to the same property or right. (2) The Court may by order grant such injunction, on such terms as to the duration of the injunction, keeping an account, giving security, or otherwise, as the Court thinks fit. 2A. Consequence of disobedience or breach of injunction .—(1) In the case of disobedience of any injunction granted or other order made under rule 1 or rule 2 or breach of any of the terms on which the injunction was granted or the order made, 4 FAFO No. 358 of 2025 the Court granting the injunction or making the order, or any Court to which the suit or proceeding is transferred, may order the property of the person guilty of such disobedience or breach to be attached, and may also order such person to be detained in the civil prison for a term not exceeding three months, unless in the meantime the Court directs his release. (2) No attachment made under this rule shall remain in force for more than one year, at the end of which time, if the disobedience or breach continues, the property attached may be sold and out of the proceeds, the Court may award such compensation as it thinks fit to the injured party and shall pay the balance, if any, to the party entitled thereto."

12. On perusal of the above provisions of the C.P.C., it clearly shows that the court can interfere only when a prima facie case is made out, balance of convenience lies in favour of the plaintiff and there is a chance of irreparable loss.

13. However, the consolidation proceedings had initiated in 1960s and after completion of the said proceedings, the ownership of the land in dispute was recorded in the name of District Board in the revenue records. These proceedings had attained finality and had never been challenged by the appellant. It is only after lapse of more than 50 years, an application has been moved by the appellant under Section 38(2) of the Revenue Code, which is still pending.

14. Once the proceedings of consolidation had attained finality and the same has not been challenged and unless and until the revenue record got amended, the relief as sought by the appellant cannot be granted. The court below has rightly rejected the application of the appellant by means of the impugned order.

15. This Court finds that there is no prima facie case made out in favour of the appellant and no balance of convenience lies in favour of the appellant neither any irreparable loss caused to him and in absence of the same, there is no question of granting any interim injunction. This Court does not see any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order. 5 FAFO No. 358 of 2025

16. In view of the above, the instant appeal sans merit and is accordingly dismissed. December 19, 2025 Anupam S/- (Prashant Kumar,J.) ANUPAM SINGH PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench