Allahabad High Court
A227/7133/2025 of MAHESH KUMAR Vs RAM JEET AND 3 OTHERS on 11 December 2025
JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 7133 of 2025 Court No. - 17 HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J. 1. Heard Shri Rakesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity of order dated
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 7133 of 2025
Court No. - 17
HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, 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 Shri Rakesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity of order dated 07.07.2025 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ayodhya in Regular Suit No.868 of 2025, Whereby, the trial court has declined to pass any ex-parte order of injunction and has issued summons/notices to the defendants. The trial court further ordered that the petitioner should take steps without any delay and fixed the date i.e.25.07.2025 for disposal of temporary injunction application.
3. Keeping in view the nature of the relief sought and order proposed to be passed, issuance of notice to the respondents is hereby dispensed with.
4. A copy of the order sheet of the trial court annexed with the writ petition, indicates that the matter was fixed on 24.09.2025, on which date, the plaintiff filed an application under Section 161 CPC for grant of interim relief for disposal of injunction application but did not appear for pressing the application. The next date was fixed on 03.09.2025, on which date, the petitioner himself filed an application for adjournment and did not appear before the trial court.
5. Although, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the notices issued to the defendants through registered post have been served and a tracking report taken from the web portal of Postal Department has been annexed with the writ petition but he has nothing to show that the same Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Rakesh Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent(s) :
Mahesh Kumar .....Petitioner(s) Ram Jeet And 3 Others .....Respondent(s)
has been brought on record to the knowledge of the trial court. In such circumstances, there is no occasion for this Court to interfere in order dated 07.07.2025 issuing notices to the defendants or to pass an order for injunction.
6. Accordingly, the present petition stand disposed off directing the petitioner to file a proper application before the trial court itself, bringing on record the tracking report showing that the notices have been served on the defendants. The trial court is also directed to decide the temporary injunction application, expeditiously without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties. December 11, 2025 V. Sinha A227 No. 7133 of 2025 2 (Subhash Vidyarthi,J.) Digitally signed by :- VAISHALI SINHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench