Allahabad High Court
A227/6614/2025 of MAN BAHADUR Vs ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER, JUDICIAL, AYODHYA DIVISION, AYODHYA AND OTHERS on 10 December 2025
JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 6614 of 2025 Court No. - 5 HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J. Heard Sri Hari Krishna Chaubey holding brief of Sri Manoj Kumar Mishra for the petitioner, learned Standing counsel for respondent No.s 1 to 4 and Sri Mohan Singh who has appeared
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 6614 of 2025
Court No. - 5
HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J.
Heard Sri Hari Krishna Chaubey holding brief of Sri Manoj Kumar Mishra for the petitioner, learned Standing counsel for respondent No.s 1 to 4 and Sri Mohan Singh who has appeared on behalf of respondent No.5.
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. IN light of the proposed order notice to private respondents is dispensed with.
2. The grievance raised by the petitioner in the present petition relates to order dated 26.7.2025 passed by Additional Commissioner ( Judicial), Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya whereby he has issued notice to the opposite partied in Appeal No.1938/2025 preferred by the private respondents. It has been submitted that while issuing notice the appellate authority has also directed the parties to maintain status quo.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the appeal itself would not be maintainable in as much as recall application is already pending before the rial court and also that in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case the appellate authority has wrongly exercised its jurisdiction in passing the interim order in the said appeal. It was fairly submitted that the petitioner has yet not put
4. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Manoj Kumar Mishra, Akansha Pathak, Pawan Kumar Shukla, Piyush Tripathi, Sourabh Pandey Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Mohan Singh Man Bahadur .....Petitioner(s) Additional Commissioner, Judicial, Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya And Others .....Respondent(s)
in appearance before the appellate authority nor has he filed any objection.
Learned Standing counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the writ petition stating that the petitioner has efficacious and alternate remedy of moving an application for vacation of the stay along with his objection to the said appeal and, therefore, without exercising the remedy available to the petitioner he has filed present writ petition. Accordingly, he has prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
5. Considering the rival contentions, it is noticed that the present writ petition has been preferred against the order dated 26.7.2025 whereby the notices have been issued to the opposite parties in case No.1938/2025 which had been preferred by the private respondents and the parties have been directed to maintain status quo. It is further noticed that the petitioner moved appropriate application before Additional Commissioner for vacation of the order dad 26.7.2025 and, therefore, it is in aforesaid circumstances that this Court is not inclined to entertain the present writ petition considering that the petitioner has efficacious and alternate remedy before the appellate authority itself. Accordingly, in the aforesaid circumstance the petition is dismissed.
6. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to move appropriate application for vacation of the order dated 26.7.2025 and in case such an application is made within next two weeks, the appellate authority shall consider and decide the same expeditiously, in accordance with law.
7. December 10, 2025 RKM. A227 No. 6614 of 2025 2 (Alok Mathur,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAKESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench