Allahabad High Court
A227/7126/2025 of SURYMANI Vs ADDL. COMMISSIONER (JUDICIAL), AYODHYA DIVISION, AYODHYA AND OTHERS on 11 December 2025
JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 7126 of 2025 Court No. - 5 HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing counsel for the State respondent. 2. In view of the proposed order notice to private respondents is dispensed
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 7126 of 2025
Court No. - 5
HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing counsel for the State respondent.
2. In view of the proposed order notice to private respondents is dispensed with.
3. Present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution has been filed with the prayer to direct Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya to decide the interim relief application dated 18.9.2025 filed in Revision No.2982/2025, under Section 210 of U.P. Revenue Code (Suryamani Vs. Ashish and others) within a stipulated time period.
4. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that in the revision preferred by the petitioner till date no interim order has been passed on the application for interim relief while on the other hand interference is being caused by the respondents on the disputed property for which there is requirement for expeditious disposal of the interim relief application. He further submits that the respondents have been served.
5. Learned State counsel does not oppose the aforesaid prayer.
6. Accordingly, considering the aforesaid submissions the petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.1 to consider and decided the application for interim relief with expedition, say within six weeks Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Dharmendra Kumar, Rupa Pandey Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Surymani .....Petitioner(s) Addl. Commissioner (Judicial), Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya And Others .....Respondent(s)
from the date service has been effected on the respondents, in case there is no legal impediment.
7. In case, it is not possible to decide the same within the time prescribed above, he shall decide the same within two weeks thereafter.
8. It is further provided that in case it is not possible to decide the application for interim relief the respondent No.1 shall consider passing ad interim injunction if a case is so made out. December 11, 2025 RKM. A227 No. 7126 of 2025 2 (Alok Mathur,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAKESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench