# Smt. Soni v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2026) 1 ILRA 529
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-01-05
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 28263 of 2025
- **Bench:** Manoj Kumar Gupta, Arun Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-soni-v-state-of-u-p-ors-54071
- **Pages:** 20

## Text

_Characters 0–39,675 of 62,276. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39675 for what follows._

1 All. Smt. Soni Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
529

As such we are minded and do award compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/-. The amount be paid to
petitioner by respondent no. 2 within four weeks from communication of certified copy of this
judgment made to the office by him.

20. The writ petition is accordingly allowed and disposed of.
----------
(2026) 1 ILRA 529
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 05.01.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, J.
THE HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR, J.

Writ C No. 28263 of 2025

Smt. Soni ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Whether the trial court acted in excess of jurisdiction in entertaining and allowing an application under Section
151 CPC to restore status quo ante, without compliance with Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC and without affording
an opportunity of hearing to the defendants.
HEADNOTE
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Section 151; Order XXXIX Rules 1, 2, 2A & 3 - Ex parte ad-interim injunction -
Mandatory requirements of Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC - Application under Section 151 CPC entertained and
allowed ex parte on the very same date - No finding recorded that the plaintiff was in possession of the suit
property on the date when injunction order was passed, nor any finding as regards the date on which the
alleged dispossession had taken place - Order for restoring status quo ante passed without affording any
opportunity of hearing to the defendants - Trial court acted in a patently illegal manner, with material
irregularity and exceeded its jurisdiction - Temporary injunction was purely prohibitory in nature and not
mandatory - No order of the trial court directing the Administrative Authorities to put respondent No. 8 in
possession - Constitution of joint team of Revenue and Police officials for delivery of possession without
jurisdiction - Action of Court below as well as Administrative Authorities found to be totally mala fide - Costs
imposed as compensation - Direction for placing the matter before Hon'ble the Chief Justice for consideration
of disciplinary action against the Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.). (E-5)
HELD:
Father-in-law of the petitioner was a co-tenure holder of the plot. After his death, the names of his heirs,
namely, Shyamji, Premji, Ramji, Lalji and Shivdhari Devi, were recorded. Respondent No. 8 obtained a sale
deed from Shyamji and Premji in respect of a specified portion of the undivided residential house, despite
530 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
there being no partition of the property. Respondent No. 8 instituted an Original Suit seeking permanent
injunction. On the very date of institution, i.e., 27.01.2025, the Civil Judge (Junior Division) granted an ex
parte ad-interim injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the alleged possession of
Respondent No. 8, without compliance with Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC. Respondent No. 8 moved an application
dated 05.02.2025 under Section 151 CPC alleging dispossession in violation of the injunction order. On the
very same date, the trial court entertained and allowed the application ex parte, directing the SHO to ensure
compliance with the injunction order, without issuing notice to the defendants and without recording any
finding regarding possession or the date of alleged dispossession.
The Sub-Divisional Magistrate directed the constitution of a joint team of Revenue and Police officials,
purportedly to deliver possession to Respondent No. 8 on the basis of the prohibitory injunction order dated
27.01.2025. On 18.07.2025, a heavy police force and revenue officials forcibly dispossessed the petitioner and
handed over possession to Respondent No. 8.
Court held that the trial court completely overlooked the mandatory provisions of Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC and
failed to ensure compliance with the statutory requirement of service of notice upon the defendants along
with copies of the plaint and other relevant documents. Trial court acted in a patently illegal manner, with
material irregularity, in entertaining the application dated 02.02.2025 under Section 151 CPC, for restoring the
possession, and in allowing the said application on the same date ex parte. Trial court ought to have issued
notice of the said application to the defendants and afforded them an opportunity to contest the same. In no
event, the procedure adopted by the trial court was justified. There was no finding recorded in the order
dated 05.02.2025 that Respondent No. 8 was in possession of the suit property on the date when the
injunction order was passed in his favour, nor was there any finding as regards the date on which the alleged
dispossession had taken place. In the absence of these findings, the order of the trial court allowing the
application for restoring status quo ante was wholly illegal. The trial court acted in a patently illegal manner,
and the dispossession of the petitioner and her minor children was wholly without jurisdiction. The
Administrative Authorities exceeded their authority and jurisdiction in constituting a revenue team for
delivering possession to Respondent No. 8. The order of temporary injunction was purely prohibitory in nature
and not mandatory. Directions were issued for restoration of possession to the petitioner and other cosharers; costs were imposed for illegal dispossession and mental trauma; and the matter was directed to be
placed before the Hon'ble Chief Justice for consideration of disciplinary action against the Civil Judge (Junior
Division).
CASE LAW CITED
Board of Trustees of the Port of Mumbai v. Nikhil N. Gupta and another, (2015) 10 SCC 139;
Sree Ram v. State of U.P. and others, 2011 (2) ALJ 187 (DB);
Smt. Jagannathiya v. State of U.P. and others, 2006 (64) ALR 330 (DB).

List of Acts
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
List of Keyword
Joint ancestral house; Ex parte ad-interim injunction; Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC; Section 151 CPC; Restoration
of possession; No physical partition; Delivery of possession; Dispossession; Trial court exceeded its
jurisdiction; Administrative authorities exceeded jurisdiction; Mandatory procedural safeguards.
CASE ARISING FROM
Writ petition seeking mandamus directing respondent Nos. 2 to 7 to open the lock and restore possession of
the petitioner over her joint ancestral house
1 All. Smt. Soni Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
531
Appearances for Parties
Advs For Petitioner: Girish Pratap Singh; Manish Nath Tripathi
Advs For Respondents: C.S.C.; Prabhakar Dubey
(Delivered by Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.
& Hon'ble Arun Kumar, J.)

1. The present writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:-

i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding and directing
the respondent no. 2 to 7 to open the lock and restore the possession of the petitioner over her joint
ancestral house.

ii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the State
Government to take appropriate action against the Respondent no. 4, 5, 6 and 7 for crushing the
rule of law.

FACTS OF THE CASE

2. The case of the petitioner is that her father-in-law namely, Gelhari was a co-tenure holder of
plot No.211, area 0.431 hectare. After his death, the names of the petitioner's husband Shyamji, his
brothers Premji, Ramji and Lalji and their mother Shivdhari Devi came to be recorded in the
relevant khatauni in his place. During his lifetime, he constructed a two storied building over the
said plot, having frontage of 20 feet on Bansi-Dandi Road and a width of 68 feet. On the ground
floor, there are two shops, each having a width of 9 feet and a gallery of 6 feet width, which serves
as an entrance to the remaining part of the house. In one of the shops, the petitioner has been
running a beauty parlour and income from the said business is the only source of livelihood for the
petitioner and her family. The husband of the petitioner, namely, Shyamji and his younger brother
Premji, unfortunately fell into bad company of respondent No.8 and started consuming liquor with
him. Respondent No.8 is a Peshkar in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate. Taking advantage of
the situation, he succeeded in obtaining a sale deed dated 14.2.2024 in his favour for a portion of
the undivided residential house, measuring 10 feet from the front and 68 feet in width.

3. It is stated that respondent No.8 procured the said sale deed for a specific portion of the
residential house, fully knowing that no division or partition of the aforesaid house had ever taken
place amongst the co-sharers and families of all the co-sharers were residing in the same. On
13.1.2025, respondent no.5, the Tehsildar, Tehsil Bansi, District Siddharth Nagar, alongwith police
force and respondent no.8, reached the house of the petitioner and asked her to vacate the house.
The petitioner strongly opposed the same, stating that the house in question is the ancestral house,
in which she has been residing with her three minor children. When respondent No.8 failed in his
attempt to take possession by force, he instituted Original Suit No. 49 of 2025 against the
petitioner, her husband Shyamji, and his brother Premji, praying for decree of permanent injunction
restraining the defendants from taking possession of property allegedly purchased by him through
sale deed dated 14.02.2024; from breaking the lock of the said house; from raising construction
532 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
over it; and from interfering in his alleged possession. Notably, the other three co-sharers were not
impleaded as parties in the said suit.

4. On 27.1.2025, the date of institution of the suit, Civil Judge (Jr. Divn) issued summons to
the defendants and fixed 24.2.2025 for filing of written statement and 6.3.2025 for framing of
issues. On the very same date, Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.) also granted an ex parte interim injunction,
restraining the defendants from interfering in the alleged possession of the plaintiff over the suit
property. It is categorically stated that respondent No.8 was never put in actual possession of the
suit property in pursuance of the sale deed. However, the trial court, without conducting any
enquiry on the issue of possession and even in absence of any supporting evidence, hurriedly
granted the said ex parte injunction.

5. As respondent No. 8 was not in possession, he therefore, with a pre-meditated design,
moved an application on 16.5.2025 before the Superintendent of Police, Siddharth Nagar, alleging
that the defendants, despite the injunction order, had forcibly taken possession of the house by
breaking the lock. It was alleged that the petitioner and the other defendants of the suit had agreed
to vacate the house by the end of March; however, even after repeated requests, they have failed to
do so. Accordingly, a request was made to direct the concerned authorities to ensure delivery of
possession of the suit property to respondent no.8.

6. It is noteworthy that, in respect of the said application, respondent No.8, in the
supplementary affidavit filed by him, clarified that the said application was in fact moved on
4.5.2025 and not on 16.05.2025, as earlier stated. The Superintendent of Police marked the said
application to Inspector Incharge of Police Station Khesaraha District- Siddharth Nagar, on
16.5.2025, and therefore the said date came to be mentioned by the Chowky Incharge Sakarpar,
Police Station Khesaraha, District - Siddharth Nagar, in his report dated 28.5.2025 submitted on the
said application to the Sub Divisional Officer, Bansi, District Siddharth Nagar. He has stated in his
report that despite the temporary injunction order dated 27.1.2025 in favour of respondent No.8, he
could not get possession of the house and that the same continues to be occupied by Shyamji and
his family members. The report further refers to the application dated 16.5.2025 submitted by
respondent No. 8 to Superintendent of Police, Siddharth Nagar for being handed over possession of
the said house to him. It is also stated therein that, in respect of said house, Original Suit No. 49 of
2025 has been instituted by respondent no.8 against Shyamji in the court of Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.)
and an order of temporary injunction was passed in the said suit on 27.1.2025. Based on the
aforesaid, a recommendation was made for constitution of a joint team of officials for the purpose
of delivering possession of the house to respondent No.8. On the said application, the Sub Division
Magistrate, vide order dated 25.6.2025, directed the Tehsildar to constitute a joint team of Revenue
and Police officials and to ensure disposal of the matter. In pursuance thereof, the Tehsildar, by
order dated 2.7.2025, directed the Naib Tehsildar to constitute the said team, and in furtherance
thereof, a joint team of Revenue officials and police personnel was proposed by Naib Tehsildar
vide order dated 8.7.2025. Thereafter, Tehsildar, Tehsil Bansi, district Siddharth Nagar, by letter
No. 121/Ra.Li/2025-26 dated __.07.2025, approved the constitution of the revenue team for
effecting delivery of possession, purportedly in compliance of the order of temporary injunction of
the trial court dated 27.1.2025 in Original Suit No.49 of 2025.
1 All. Smt. Soni Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
533

7. The case of the petitioner is that, on the basis of aforesaid directions, a heavy police force
from two police stations and Revenue team headed by Naib Tehsildar, Khesaraha, and Revenue
Inspector, alongwith five Lekhpals, reached the house of the petitioner on 18.7.2025. The petitioner
was forcibly arrested and detained in a police vehicle alongwith her three children, aged 8 years, 4
years and 3 years respectively. The Revenue authorities and the police forcibly threw out the entire
goods lying in the beauty parlour run by the petitioner. Thereafter, they handed over possession of
the house to respondent No.8 by permitting him to put his lock on the premises. The petitioner had
no prior knowledge of the interim order dated 27.1.2025 passed in the original suit. It was only on
18.7.2025, at the time of her forcible eviction, that the joint team of Revenue and Police officials
apprised her of the order of temporary injunction. The petitioner alleges that she even had no
knowledge of the suit. After her dispossession, she attempted to meet the District Magistrate,
Siddharth Nagar on 18.7.2025 and 19.7.2025 but could not succeed in meeting him. The petitioner
thereafter submitted several representations to higher authorities, including the Chief Minister, but
as none of her grievances were attended to, she was constrained to file the present writ petition.

8. On the first date of hearing of the writ petition, i.e., 22.8.2025, appearance was entered on
behalf of respondent No.8. During course of hearing, learned counsel for respondent No.8 sought to
justify the action of the administrative authorities in constituting a joint team of Revenue officials
and Police personnel for delivering possession to respondent No. 8, on basis of an order said to
have been passed by the trial court on 5.2.2025, on the application moved by respondent No.8
under Section 151 CPC. The said order is as under:

वादी द्वारा प्राथतना पत्र अन्तगत र्ारा 151 सी०पी.सी० प्रस्ट्तुत कर कथन क्रकया गया है क्रक
प्रर्तवादी द्वारा पववाददत मकान में िबरन ताला तोडकर कब्िा कर सलया है। न्यायालय द्वारा अन्तररम
अस्ट्थायी र्नषेर्ाज्ञा िारी क्रकया गया है, उसके बाविूद भी प्रर्तवादीगण न्यायालय के आदेश का उल्लंघन
कर रहें हैं।

सूना एवं पत्रावली का अवलोकन क्रकया। पत्रावली के अवलोकन से पवददत होता है क्रक न्यायालय
द्वारा ददनांक 27.01.2025 को प्रर्तवादीगण के पवरूद्र् अन्तररम र्नषेर्ाज्ञा िारी क्रकया गया है, इसके
बाविूद प्रर्तवादीगण द्वारा उक्त पववाददत सम्पपत्त में िबरन कब्िा कर सलया है। अतः वादी का प्राथतना पत्र
न्यायदहत में स्ट्वीकार क्रकया िाता है। मामला अिेन्ट है। ऐसे में थानाध्यि िेसरहा को आदेसशत क्रकया िाता
है क्रक न्यायालय द्वारा पाररत आदेश ददनाक 27.01.2025 का अनुपालन कराया िाना सुर्नजश्चत करें।
तद्नुसार प्राथतना पत्र र्नस्ट्ताररत क्रकया िाता है। पत्रावली र्नयत ददनांक को 72 पर सुनवायी हेतु पेश हो।

9. Having regard to the facts of the case and the submissions made on behalf of respondent
No.8, the following order was passed on 22.8.2025 :-

"1. Sri Prabhakr Dubey, Advocate has entered appearance on behalf of respondent No.8.

2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length and prima facie, it is
evident that the present case is gross abuse of the process of law and the administrative powers of
the State.
534 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

3. Before we proceed to pass orders on merit, as prayed by learned counsel for
respondent No.8, he is granted time to complete his instructions.

4. We also require the Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Judicial Magistrate, Bansi,
Siddharth Nagar, to submit his comments through the District Judge in relation to the manner in
which order dated 05.02.2025 has been passed by him in Original Suit No.49/2025.

5. The Registrar General shall communicate the instant order to the District Judge,
Siddharth Nagar for immediate compliance.

6. Put up as fresh on 25.08.2025."

10. In pursuance of the said order, Sri Pankaj, Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), who had passed various
orders in the suit from time to time, submitted his comments, through the District Judge, Siddharth
Nagar, which is as under:

प्रेषक,

ससपवल िि (िू०डि०) / िे०एम०

बांसी, िनपद ससद्वाथतनगर।

सेवा में,

 माननीय िनपद न्यायार्ीश

िनपद ससद्वाथतनगर।

पवषयः अद्तर्शासकीय पत्र संख्या 88/2025 ददनांक्रकत 22.08.2025 एवं ररट सी० नं0 28263/2025 श्रीमती
सोनी प्रर्त उ०प्र० सरकार व सात अन्य के अनुपालन के संबंर् में आख्या।
महोदय,

अर्त पवनम्र र्नवेदन है क्रक मूल वाद संख्या 49/2025 संदीप गुप्ता बनाम श्यामिी आदद में वादी
संदीप गुप्ता द्वारा न्यायालय ससपवल िि (िू०डि०) / िे०एम० बासी, ससद्र्ाथतनगर में ददनांक 27.01. 2025
को वाद दायर क्रकया गया एवं न्यायालय ससपवल िि (िू०डि०) / िे०एम० बांसी, ससद्र्ाथतनगर द्वारा ददनांक
27.01.2025 को प्रथम दृष्टया वादी के पि में िसरा ितौनी एवं पंिीकृत बैनामा के आर्ार पर अंतररम
अरथायी र्नषेर्ाज्ञा पाररत क्रकया गया तथा प्रर्तवादीगण / पवपिीगण को नोदटस िारी क्रकया गया।

दौरान मूलवाद सुनवायी वादी द्वारा ददनांक 05.02.2025 को प्राथतना पत्र मय शपथ पत्र अन्तगत
र्ारा 151 व्यवहार प्रक्रक्रया संदहता दाणिल क्रकया गया। जिसमें वादी द्वारा यह कथन क्रकया गया क्रक
प्रर्तवादीगण / पवपिीगण द्वारा पूवत में पाररत आदेश ददनांक्रकत 27.01. 2025 अंतररम अस्ट्थायी र्नषेर्ाज्ञा
का पालन नहीं क्रकया िा रहा है, तथा संपपत्त पर िबरदस्ट्ती कब्िा क्रकया िा रहा है। इस संबंर् में न्यायालय
द्वारा माननीय उच्चतम न्यायालय एवं माननीय उच्च न्यायालय के पवचर् व्यवस्ट्था को दृजष्टगत रिते हुए
1. Board of Trustees of the Port of Mumbai Vs. Nikhil N. Gupta, (2015) 10 SCC 139, 2. Sree Ram
Vs. State of U.P. 2011 (2) ALJ 187 (AII) (DB) 3. Smt. Jagannathiya Vs. State of U.P.] 2006 (64)
1 All. Smt. Soni Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
535
ALR 330 (AII) (DB) ददनांक 05.02.2025 को वादी के प्राथतना पत्र अन्तगत र्ारा 151 व्यवहार प्रक्रक्रया
संदहता स्ट्वीकार करते हुए संबंचर्त थानाध्यि को आदेसशत क्रकया गया क्रक वह न्यायालय द्वारा पाररत
आदेश ददनांक 27. 01.2025 का अनुपालन कराया िाना सुर्नजश्चत करें। न्यायालय द्वारा पूवत में पाररत
आदेश ददनांक्रकत 27.01.2025 क्रकसी प्रकार का पररवततन नहीं क्रकया गया है।

इस न्यायालय द्वारा उस समय उपलब्र् पररजस्ट्थर्तयों एवं प्रस्ट्तुत साक्ष्यों पर पवचार करते हुए
अंतररम अस्ट्थायी र्नषेर्ाज्ञा आदेश की प्रभावशाली बनाये रिने तथा संभापवत पवघटन एवं पववाद की
जस्ट्थर्त को टालने के उद्देश्य से उक्त प्राथतना पत्र स्ट्वीकार क्रकया गया।

पत्रावली में पवगत कई र्तचथ व्यतीत हो िाने पर भी प्रर्तवादीगण न्यायालय में उपजस्ट्थत नहीं हो
रहे है और न ही प्रर्तवादीगण द्वारा आि तक पत्रावली पर अपना िवाबोत्तर एवं अस्ट्थायी र्नषेर्ाज्ञा प्राथतना
पत्र पर आपपत्त दाणिल क्रकया गया है। पत्रावली प्राथतना पत्र अन्तगत आदेश 39 र्नयम 1 व 2 के गुण दोष पर
र्नस्ट्तारण हेतु ददनांक 10.10.2025 र्नयत है

आख्या माननीय महोदय की सेवा में सादर प्रेपषत ।

ददनांक 22.08.2025
भवदीय
ससपवल िि िू० डि०/ िे० एम०
बांसी, िनपद ससद्र्ाथत नगर ।

11. Respondent No.8 has also filed his affidavit. The stand taken by him is that the petitioner
has not approached this Court with clean hands. It is alleged that the petitioner has incorrectly
stated in the writ petition that respondent No.8 was posted as Reader in the court of CJM Siddharth
Nagar, whereas, according to him, the correct position is that he was posted as Clerk in Copying
Section. He denied having any closeness with the Judge. On merit, it is submitted that the property
belonged to Gelhari, and after his death, it devolved on five persons. It is alleged that thereafter an
oral settlement took place among the family members, pursuant to which two brothers executed the
sale deed dated 14.2.2025 in respect of their shares in favour of respondent no.8. It is further
claimed that possession was also delivered to him at the time of execution of the sale deed, and that
he put his lock on the room which was allegedly constructed in the part of the property purchased
by him. It is also alleged that as respondent No.8 is a permanent resident of District Sant Kabir
Nagar and not permanently residing in the disputed house, the petitioner and other co-sharers
taking advantage of the situation, broke open the lock, and forcibly entered the room allegedly in
his possession, compelling him to institute the suit for permanent injunction restraining the
defendants from creating any interference in his possession. The trial court granted a temporary
injunction in his favour on 27.1.2025. It is alleged that in violation of the said injunction order, the
petitioner broke open the lock on 2.2.2025, compelling respondent no.8 to move an application on
5.2.2025 before the trial court seeking restoration of possession. The trial court, accordingly,
passed the order on 5.2.2025, directing the SHO, Khesarhara, Siddharth Nagar, to ensure
restoration of possession in favour of respondent No.8 and to submit a compliance report within
three days. In compliance of the said order, the SHO, Police Station Khesarhara submitted a
536 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
compliance report dated 7.2.2025 stating that possession had been restored in favour of respondent
No.8 and that he had put his lock on the premises. Alongwith the compliance report, copies of the
relevant reports and certificate was annexed, according to which, possession of the property had
been duly handed over to respondent No.8. The further case of respondent No.8 is that, thereafter,
the petitioner again broke the lock and entered the house. Consequently, this time, he directly
requested the Tehsil authorities for delivery of possession, whereupon the Sub Divisional
Magistrate vide order dated 28.5.2025, directed the Tehsil authorities to conduct spot inspection
and take necessary action. Pursuant thereto, a team was constituted and possession was again
delivered to respondent No.8 on 20.7.2025, and a spot memo was prepared in that regard.

12. Thus, the case of respondent No.8 is that he has not taken possession forcibly, but strictly
in accordance with law. It is further asserted that possession of only 10 feet x 15 feet of the house
has been delivered to him and the remaining portion continues to be in possession of the other cosharers. According to respondent no.8, the petitioner is one of the defendants in the civil suit and
has effective alternative remedy of moving an application for vacation of the order of temporary
injunction. On this premise, it is contended that the present writ petition is not maintainable and is
liable to be dismissed.

13. The petitioner, however, has filed a rejoinder affidavit, reasserting that respondent No.8
wields considerable influence in the district court establishment. It is stated that on enquiry, she
came to know that respondent no.8 had earlier worked as Peshkar in the court of Munsif, and was
thereafter transferred as a Peshkar in the POCSO Court, and is presently working in the Copying
Section. It has been reiterated that respondent No.8 was never in possession of any part of the
house. According to the petitioner, respondent No.8 was well aware that the property in question is
a residential house, in which families of five co-shares are residing and there has been no physical
partition of their respective shares.

14. It has further been reasserted that the case set up by respondent No.8, allegeing that the
petitioner and other co-sharers twice broke open the lock and took possession, is palpably false. It
is specifically pleaded that respondent No.8 never came into actual physical possession of any part
of the ancestral property on basis of the sale deed. According to the petitioner, possession was
sought to be obtained for the first time on 18.7.2025 through administrative intervention, under
garb of the ex parte injunction order dated 27.1.2025 and not on basis of any pre-existing lawful
possession. It is further stated that Original Suit No. 49 of 2025 has been instituted by Shivdhari,
widow of Gelhari, seeking cancellation of the sale deed and the said civil suit is presently pending.
It is submitted that in absence of any fresh order of Civil Court directing the revenue authorities to
handover possession to respondent No.8, the administrative authorities had no authority to entertain
the application dated 26.05.2025. The dispossession of the petitioner, on the basis of the said
application dated 26.05.2025, under the guise of execution of the temporary injunction order dated
27.01.2025, by the administrative authorities, is without jurisdiction.

Contentions of learned counsel for the parties:

15. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that :-
1 All. Smt. Soni Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
537

(a) The administrative authorities had no power or jurisdiction to constitute any joint
team for the purpose of delivering possession of the property to respondent No.8. The entire
exercise carried out by the joint team constituted in pursuance of the officer memo bearing letter
No. 121 dated __ July 25, is without authority of law and liable to be set aside.

(b) The trial court exceeded its jurisdiction in granting ad-interim ex parte injunction,
without first ascertaining whether the plaintiff (respondent No.8) was in actual physical possession
of the suit property. Again, the trial court fell into error in entertaining the application for
restoration of possession under Section 151 CPC, firstly, on a date not fixed in the case, and
secondly, in allowing it on the same date, even without issuing any notice to the petitioner and
without conducting any enquiry. According to learned counsel, such an order, having serious civil
consequences, could not have been passed in a summary manner.

(c) There was no order of the trial court for delivery of possession to respondent no.8, on
basis of which the revenue team could have been constituted vide office memo dated July 25.

(d) Respondent No.8 could never have come into, nor was he ever in possession of any
defined or demarcated portion of the property, inasmuch as the property is undivided. Further, the
stand taken in the counter affidavit is inconsistent and falsifies the claim of respondent No.8 that he
was dispossessed twice by the petitioner and other co-sharers.

(e) Trial court passed various orders in favour of respondent no.8 being swayed by the
fact that he was an employee of the district court and worked as Peshkar in different courts.
Consequently, the entire exercise stands vitiated.

16. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.8 submitted that:

(i) Respondent No.8 was lawfully handed over possession of the portion of the house in
respect of which sale deed was executed in his favour, the vendors being in actual physical
possession thereof at the time of execution of the sale deed.

(ii) The petitioner and other co-sharers twice broke open the locks and succeeded in
dispossessing respondent No.8 and, therefore, the trial court and the administrative authorities
have rightly passed the orders to protect his possession and to restore status quo ante.

(iii) The petitioner has an effective alternative remedy of seeking vacation of the
temporary injunction by moving appropriate application before the trial court and, therefore, the
present writ petition ought not to be entertained.

17. We have considered the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and
perused the material on record, including the written submissions.

Discussion and Analysis:

18. Admittedly, Gelhai, father-in-law of the petitioner, was a co-tenure holder along with
several other persons of Plot No.211 area 0.4310 hectare. It is also admitted that upon his death, his
share in the joint holding devolved on his four sons, namely, Shyamji, Premji, Ramji, Lalji and his
wife, Shivdhari Devi. As per revenue records, though after death of Gelhai, name of all his heirs,
came to be recorded in his place but there is no physical partition of the respective shares. There is
also no evidence brought on record in this regard by respondent No. 8, except the bald assertion in
respect of oral settlement. Moreover, there is no such case set up in the suit nor respondent no. 8
538 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
has ever asserted that his vendors were exclusive owners of the portion of property being
transferred. There was also no such recital in the sale deed. In fact, in the sale deed, it has not been
stated how a specific portion of the property is being sold.

19. The specific case of the petitioner is that the house has been in joint possession of all the
co-tenure holders. She has been residing therein along with her three children. One of the two
shops on the ground floor was in her possession wherefrom she has been running a beauty parlour
and cosmetic shop. It has been stated that since husband of the petitioner is a drunkard, she earns
livelihood for the family from the business being run from the aforesaid shop. Respondent No.8, in
the counter affidavit filed by him, has not denied that the petitioner was running a beauty parlour
from one of the shops on the ground floor. He has also not disputed that the petitioner has been
dispossessed on basis of the orders passed by the trial court and the action taken by the
Administrative Authorities was ostensibly for giving effect to the orders of the trial court.

20. The present proceedings, in pursuance of which the petitioner and her family have been
dispossessed, commenced with an application stated to have been filed by respondent No. 8 on
04.05.2025 before the Superintendent of Police, District Siddharth Nagar. In the said application,
respondent no. 8 has asserted that he had purchased a small part of 0.0063197 hectare out of 0.4310
hectare of Gata No. 211, over which a residential building was in existence, by means of sale-deed
dated 14.02.2024 from Shyamji and Premji. On basis of the said transaction, his name was mutated
in the revenue records on 27.04.2024. It was further stated that he had put his domestic belongings
in the said portion and had put a lock thereon, thereby coming in possession of the same. On
27.01.2025, he instituted a suit in the court of Civil Judge (J.D.), Bansi seeking a decree of
permanent injunction restraining the defendants from breaking the lock, raising construction over
the property, or otherwise interfering with his alleged possession. It is alleged that despite order of
temporary injunction in his favour, the vendors broke open the lock and re-entered the house,
assuring him they would vacate the premises by March. However, despite repeated requests, they
did not vacate the house. Respondent No.8 further claimed that he attempted to contact the vendor,
Shyamji, telephonically as well as personally, but all such attempts failed. On the basis of the
aforesaid allegations, the said application was filed seeking issuance of appropriate orders for
delivery of possession of the house to respondent No.8. The application, for ease of reference, is
extracted below:
extracted below:

"सेवा में,

श्रीमान् पुसलस अर्ीिक महोदय,

 िनपद ससद्र्ाथतनगर।
महोदय,

सपवनय र्नवेदन है क्रक प्राथी मौिा सकारपार, तप्पा बीसो, परगना-बांसी पूरब तहसील बांसी थाना
िेसरहा, िनपद ससद्र्ाथतनगर जस्ट्थत आरािी गाटा सं0-211/0.4310 हे0 में से 0.0063197 हे0 में र्नसमत
आवासीय मकान का ददनांक 14.02.2024 को श्यामिी व प्रेमिी पुत्रगण गेल्हई से बैनामा सलया था। उक्त
1 All. Smt. Soni Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
539
आरािी का नामांतरण ददनांक 27.04.2024 को प्राथी के हक में तहसीलदार महोदय बांसी द्वारा क्रकया िा
चूका है, जिसके आर्ार पर प्राथी का नाम ितौनी में बत्तौर संक्रमणीय भूसमर्र दित हो चुका है। क्रय शुदा
मकान में प्राथी द्वारा कुछ घरेलू सामान रिकर एवं ताला लगाकर आबाद हो गया। माननीय ससपवल िि
िू०डि० बांसी द्वारा ददनांक 27.01.2025 को प्राथी के मकान का न ताला तोडे न ही उक्त मकान में कोई
र्नमातण करें न ही वादी के शांर्त पूणत कब्िा दिल में अवरोर् उत्पन्न करें। इसके बाविूद पवक्रेता द्वारा उक्त
मकान का ताला तोडकर कब्िा कर सलया और पवक्रेतागण द्वारा आि तक उक्त मकान िाली नहीं क्रकया
गया। प्राथी द्वारा पवक्रेता श्यामिी पुत्र गेल्हई के मोबाइन नं08948358513 पर फोन क्रकये िाने पर उक्त
पवक्रेता श्यामिी द्वारा न तो प्राथी का फोन ररसीव क्रकया िाता है और न ही व्यजक्तगत रूप से प्राथी से
सम्पकत क्रकया िाता है।

अतः श्रीमान् िी से र्नवेदन है क्रक प्राथी का उक्त क्रय शुदा आवासीय मकान पर कब्िा ददलाये
िाने हेतु सम्बजन्र्त को आदेसशत करने की कृपा करें।

सादर।
ददनांक-04.05.2025
संलननक-थाना िेसरहा ददनांक्रकत 02.02.2025
की आख्या
प्राथी
संदीप गुप्ता
मो0नं0-9721283848"

21. It is noteworthy that in the said application, respondent No. 8 did not disclose the date on
which he was allegedly dispossessed by the vendors by breaking the lock and re-entering the
portion claimed to have been sold to him. It is further relevant to note that after obtaining order of
ad interim injunction from the trial court on 27.01.2025, respondent No. 8 filed an application
under Section 151 CPC on 05.02.2025 alleging that the defendants in the suit had forcibly taken
possession of the sold property by breaking open the locks, despite the subsistence of the order of
temporary injunction, thereby violating the order passed by the court. The relevant portion of the
said application is extracted herein below:

"उपरोक्त स्ट्थगन आदेश की िानकारी प्रर्तवादीगण को हो गयी और वह वादी के अनुपजस्ट्थत का
लाभ उठाकर ददनांक 02.02.2025 को वादी के मकान अिर ABFEA का ताला तोडकर उसमें िबरन घुस गये
और माननीय न्यायालय के स्ट्थगन आदेश का उल्लंघन करके बादी दणिल दावे के उ द्देश्य को फेल करने पर
आमदा है। ऐसी पररजस्ट्थत में तहसीलदार बांसी व रािस्ट्व र्नरीिक मय लेिपाल थानाध्यि िेसरहा मय
पुसलसबल के साथ बादी के मकान में िो दौरान मुकदमा प्रर्तवादीगण द्वारा ताला तोडकर कब्िा कर सलया
गया है को िाली कराया िाना आवश्यक व न्यायसंगत है।"
540 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

22. On the same date, the trial court allowed the aforesaid application and directed the SHO,
Khesraha, to ensure compliance with the order of ad-interim injunction dated 27.01.2025. The
order passed by the trial court on the said date reads as follows:

"हदनांक & 05-02-2025

वादी द्वारा प्राथतना पत्र अन्तगत र्ारा 151 सी०पी.सी० प्रस्ट्तुत कर कथन क्रकया गया है क्रक
प्रर्तवादी द्वारा पववाददत मकान में िबरन ताला तोडकर कब्िा कर सलया है। न्यायालय द्वारा अन्तररम
अस्ट्थायी र्नषेर्ाज्ञा िारी क्रकया गया है. उसके बाविूद भी प्रर्तवादीगण न्यायालय के आदेश का उल्लंघन
कर रहें हैं।

सूना एवं पत्रावली का अवलोकन क्रकया। पत्रावली के अवलोकन से पवददत होता है क्रक न्यायालय
द्वारा ददनांक 27.01.2025 को प्रर्तवादीगण के पवरूद्र् अन्तररम र्नषेर्ाज्ञा िारी क्रकया गया है, इसके
बाविूद प्रर्तवादीगण द्वारा उक्त पववाददत सम्पपत्त में िबरन कब्िा कर सलया है। अतः वादी का प्राथतना पत्र
न्यायदहत में स्ट्वीकार क्रकया िाता है। मामला अिेन्ट है। ऐसे में थानाध्यि िेसरहा को आदेसशत क्रकया िाता
है क्रक न्यायालय द्वारा पाररत आदेश ददनांक 27.01. 2025 का अनुपालन कराया िाना सुर्नजश्चत करें।
तद्नुसार प्राथतना पत्र र्नस्ट्ताररत क्रकया िाता है। पत्रावली र्नयत ददनांक को 712 पर सुनवायी हेतु पेश हो।

हस्ट्तािर अपठनीय
05.02.2025
ससपवल िि (िू०डि०) / िे०एम०
बांसी, ससद्र्ाथतनगर।"

23. On the same date, the trial court also issued a notice to the Inspector Incharge, Police
Station, Khesraha, District Siddharth Nagar directing him to ensure due compliance of the order
dated 27.01.2025 and to submit a compliance report within three days. The notice issued by the
trial court reads as follows:

तयायालय शसववल जज (जु०डड०) / तयातयक मन्जस्ट्रेट, बांसी, शसद्वाथटनगर।
नोहटस
बनाम
थाना प्रिारी, खेसरहा, शसद्धाथटनगर।

आपको अवगत कराना है कक मूल वाद संख्या 49/2025 संदीप गुप्ता बनाम श्यामजी आहद में
हदनांक 27.01.2025 को प्रततवादीगण को अततररम तनषेधाज्ञा जारी ककया गया है. न्जसके बावजूद
प्रततवादीगण द्वारा उक्त मकान का ताला तोड़कर घर में घुस गये हैं, तयायालय के आदेि का उल्लंघन ककया
गया है. जो कक अत्यतत आपविजनक है।
1 All. Smt. Soni Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
541

अतः आपको आदेशित ककया जाता है कक तयायालय के आदेि हदनांक 27.01. 2025 का अनुपालन
कराया जाना सुतनन्श्ित करे और तयायालय को अतदर 03 हदवस में उक्त कायटवाही से अवगत करें।
हस्ट्तािर अपठनीय
हदनांक 05.02.2025
05.02.2025
शसववल जज (जू०डड०) / जे०एम०
बांसी, शसद्धाथटनगर।
संलग्नक आदेि हदनांक 27.01.2025 की एक प्रतत।"

24. It is noteworthy that on 05.02.2025 itself, the very date on which application under Section
151 CPC was filed, it was entertained and allowed ex parte. The suit was not fixed for any other
purpose on that date. As a matter of fact, while granting ex parte ad-interim injunction on
27.01.2025, the trial court had issued summons to the defendants and had fixed 24.02.2025 for
W.S. and 06.03.2025 for settlement of issues. It is further relevant to note here that while passing
order of exparte ad-interim injunction and fixing 10.02.2025 for consideration of the application for
temporary injunction, the trial court completely overlooked the mandatory provisions of Order
XXXIX Rule 3 CPC. Under the said provision, the court granting ex parte injunction is required to
direct the plaintiff to take immediate steps to serve upon the defendants, by the registered post,
copies of the application for injunction alongwith the supporting affidavit, a copy of the plaint, and
copies of the documents relied upon and further to file, on the day such injunction was granted or
on the immediately following day, an affidavit stating that copies have been duly delivered or
dispatched. A perusal of the order granting temporary injunction reveals that no specific reason has
been recorded therein for formation of the opinion that the object of granting the injunction would
be defeated by delay. Furthermore, the trial court failed to ensure compliance with the statutory
requirement of service of notice upon the defendants alongwith copies of plaint and other relevant
documents as mandated under law.

25. The specific case of the petitioner is that she has neither been served with summons in the
suit nor was she aware of the ex parte injunction order until the Revenue Authorities and the Police
Team arrived at the site and delivered possession to respondent No.8. In cases where an ex parte
injunction order is granted, the law mandates that every endevour must be made to dispose of the
injunction application at the earliest. However, a perusal of the order-sheet reveals that on the very
next date i.e.