Maimunnisha vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin./ Addl. Chief Secy.,

Sri Mohd. Ateeq Khan learned counsel has filed his vakalatnama on behalf of respondent no.10 which is taken on record. The petitioner has approached this Court seeking following prayers: "(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus thereby commanding and directing the opposite parties nos.2 to 5 to stop the construction raised by the opposite party no.7 to 10 over the land Gata no.226 area 0.4060 hectare and Gata no.225 area 0.3790 hectare situated at Village Poore Hirawan, Pargana-Sadar, Tehsil-Raniganj, District Pratapgarh in strict compliance of the interim injunction order dated

20.03.2018 as well as pendency of the case under Section 116 of U.P. Revenue code, in the interest of justice. (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite party nos.2 to 5 to take necessary action against the opposite party no.6 for dereliction of duty and connivance in the illegal acts of private respondents. (iii) Issue any other writ, order or direction in the nature which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice." The grievance of the petitioner is that a suit under Section 116 of the U.P.Revenue Code, 2006 was initiated before the respondent no.3 registered 2 WRIC No. 9976 of 2025 as Case no.03373 of 2018. In the said suit, the petitioner had also moved an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC and on the said application on 20.03.2018, the order was passed by the court concerned directing the parties to maintain status quo. It is also the case of the petitioner that the matter being listed repeatedly before the Court and there was no change in the interim order i.e. to say that neither the said order was modified or vacated or discharged. However, on

03.03.2025 in the portal maintained by the respondent State Authorities, the status of the case instituted by the petitioner indicated that none had appeared on behalf of the petitioner and in absence of the party and for want of evidence the suit was dismissed and the file was consigned to record. It is thereafter, that the private respondents, it is alleged that had started raising constructions and upon looking on a situation petitioner inquired and found that even though no date was fixed for 03.03.2025 hence, there was no occasion for the matter to be listed, accordingly, it could not have been dismissed. It is in the aforesaid context that the petitioner had filed the instant petition that though his suit is pending where the interim order still subsists but for the incorrect order available on the official website of the State respondent, the status of the case shows as having been dismissed for want of prosecution and for lack of evidence which has been taken benefit by the private respondents who had started raising construction. The Court had called upon learned Standing counsel to seek complete instructions in the matter and today the original file of Suit no.03373 of 2018 has been placed before the Court. As per instructions which have been issued under the signatures of the S.D.M Raniganj Pratapgarh dated 13.10.2025, a copy of which has been provided to the Court for perusal and the same is taken on record would indicate that the S.D.M has clearly stated that perhaps on account of some mistake the said order allegedly dated 03.03.2025 was uploaded on the website. It has also been stated that a show cause notice has been issued to the Reader, a copy of which has been annexed with the written instructions. From a perusal of the original records relating to Suit no.03373 of 2018 it would indicate that several dates are repeatedly being fixed in the said case. 3 WRIC No. 9976 of 2025 The order sheet indicates that the matter was listed on 02.02.2025 and the next date thereafter was 16.05.2025 and on 16.05.2025 the next date fixed was 25.06.2025. It is during this period that the alleged order was uploaded on the official website since last date was 02.02.2025 as per original record wherein the date was 16.05.2025 and in the interim period, it is not disputed by the private respondent that no application was moved to prepone the date for taking up the matter. Therefore, apparently, there was no way for the case to be listed on 03.03.2025, accordingly, the order, a copy of which has been brought on record as Annexure-4 at page-35 of the petition is an erroneous order, which has also been admitted by the S.D.M in the written instructions provided to the Court. The matter has now been listed on 24.10.2025 and it has been informed by the learned Standing counsel that necessary correction/rectification has been done in the official website and in the status of the aforesaid case i.e suit no.03373 of 2018, it now indicates that it is still pending. In this view of the matter, nothing further remains in the instant petition to be adjudicated but it will be worthwhile to state that on account of fault of the State/Court none of the contesting parties can suffer any harm. If there is any apprehension that the private respondents treating the order dated

03.03.2025 to be effective had started raising construction, then this Court clarifies this fact after perusing the original record made available, that the interim order granted on the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC dated 20.03.2018 still continues to subsist and would bind the parties till it is modified, varied or set aside as per law. It may also be observed that this Court has not examined the case of the parties on merit, they will be at liberty of getting their case decided in accordance with law before the trial court. The original record has been handed over to the learned Standing counsel. With the aforesaid observations, the petition stands disposed of. October 15, 2025 Harshita (Jaspreet Singh,J.) HARSHITA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Sri Mohd. Ateeq Khan learned counsel has filed his vakalatnama on behalf of respondent no.10 which is taken on record. The petitioner has approached this Court seeking following prayers: "(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus thereby commanding and directing the opposite parties nos.2 to 5 to stop the construction raised by the opposite party no.7 to 10 over the land Gata no.226 area 0.4060 hectare and Gata no.225 area 0.3790 hectare situated at Village Poore Hirawan, Pargana-Sadar, Tehsil-Raniganj, District Pratapgarh in strict compliance of the interim injunction order dated

20.03.2018 as well as pendency of the case under Section 116 of U.P. Revenue code, in the interest of justice. (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite party nos.2 to 5 to take necessary action against the opposite party no.6 for dereliction of duty and connivance in the illegal acts of private respondents. (iii) Issue any other writ, order or direction in the nature which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice." The grievance of the petitioner is that a suit under Section 116 of the U.P.Revenue Code, 2006 was initiated before the respondent no.3 registered 2 WRIC No. 9976 of 2025 as Case no.03373 of 2018. In the said suit, the petitioner had also moved an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC and on the said application on 20.03.2018, the order was passed by the court concerned directing the parties to maintain status quo. It is also the case of the petitioner that the matter being listed repeatedly before the Court and there was no change in the interim order i.e. to say that neither the said order was modified or vacated or discharged. However, on

03.03.2025 in the portal maintained by the respondent State Authorities, the status of the case instituted by the petitioner indicated that none had appeared on behalf of the petitioner and in absence of the party and for want of evidence the suit was dismissed and the file was consigned to record. It is thereafter, that the private respondents, it is alleged that had started raising constructions and upon looking on a situation petitioner inquired and found that even though no date was fixed for 03.03.2025 hence, there was no occasion for the matter to be listed, accordingly, it could not have been dismissed. It is in the aforesaid context that the petitioner had filed the instant petition that though his suit is pending where the interim order still subsists but for the incorrect order available on the official website of the State respondent, the status of the case shows as having been dismissed for want of prosecution and for lack of evidence which has been taken benefit by the private respondents who had started raising construction. The Court had called upon learned Standing counsel to seek complete instructions in the matter and today the original file of Suit no.03373 of 2018 has been placed before the Court. As per instructions which have been issued under the signatures of the S.D.M Raniganj Pratapgarh dated 13.10.2025, a copy of which has been provided to the Court for perusal and the same is taken on record would indicate that the S.D.M has clearly stated that perhaps on account of some mistake the said order allegedly dated 03.03.2025 was uploaded on the website. It has also been stated that a show cause notice has been issued to the Reader, a copy of which has been annexed with the written instructions. From a perusal of the original records relating to Suit no.03373 of 2018 it would indicate that several dates are repeatedly being fixed in the said case. 3 WRIC No. 9976 of 2025 The order sheet indicates that the matter was listed on 02.02.2025 and the next date thereafter was 16.05.2025 and on 16.05.2025 the next date fixed was 25.06.2025. It is during this period that the alleged order was uploaded on the official website since last date was 02.02.2025 as per original record wherein the date was 16.05.2025 and in the interim period, it is not disputed by the private respondent that no application was moved to prepone the date for taking up the matter. Therefore, apparently, there was no way for the case to be listed on 03.03.2025, accordingly, the order, a copy of which has been brought on record as Annexure-4 at page-35 of the petition is an erroneous order, which has also been admitted by the S.D.M in the written instructions provided to the Court. The matter has now been listed on 24.10.2025 and it has been informed by the learned Standing counsel that necessary correction/rectification has been done in the official website and in the status of the aforesaid case i.e suit no.03373 of 2018, it now indicates that it is still pending. In this view of the matter, nothing further remains in the instant petition to be adjudicated but it will be worthwhile to state that on account of fault of the State/Court none of the contesting parties can suffer any harm. If there is any apprehension that the private respondents treating the order dated

03.03.2025 to be effective had started raising construction, then this Court clarifies this fact after perusing the original record made available, that the interim order granted on the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC dated 20.03.2018 still continues to subsist and would bind the parties till it is modified, varied or set aside as per law. It may also be observed that this Court has not examined the case of the parties on merit, they will be at liberty of getting their case decided in accordance with law before the trial court. The original record has been handed over to the learned Standing counsel. With the aforesaid observations, the petition stands disposed of. October 15, 2025 Harshita (Jaspreet Singh,J.) HARSHITA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench