Kuber Maurya v. State of U.P. and 6 Others

Court No. - 40 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 33477 of 2023 Petitioner :- Kuber Maurya Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Lal Chandra Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J.

¶1Heard Sri Lal Chandra Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri F.A. Ansari, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.

¶2The petitioner is before this Court with request to issue direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to ensure compliance of injunction order dated 06.8.2013 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) VIII, Varanasi in Suit No.211 of 2013 (Mahendra vs. Rajendra).

¶3Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the father of the petitioner instituted aforesaid Civil Suit No.211 of 2013 in the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) VII, Varanasi, wherein a temporary injunction has been accorded on 06.08.20213 restraining the defendants/private respondents not to demolish the house in question and not to alienate the same without any legal partition/demarcation by the competent court and the said suit is still pending consideration. He submits that direction may be issued to the respondents for ensuring compliance of said injunction accorded in favour of the petitioner.

¶4Learned Standing Counsel submits that the dispute vis-a-vis between private respondent nos.4 to 6 and petitioner. He further submits that the writ petition is not maintainable as there is serious dispute qua the rights/title of the property in question and the same cannot be adjudication in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. A writ petition for enforcement of the common law remedies under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not ordinarily maintainable for such reliefs against persons, who do not have any public duties to perform. The petitioner has adequate and efficacious alternative remedies of approaching the District Judiciary, at the first instance for seeking aforesaid remedies.

¶5Considering the facts and circumstances and the objection so raised by learned Standing Counsel, we are not at all inclined to issue any direction in the matter. In case an injunction order is being flouted or there is any breach of injunction by the defendants, the appropriate remedy for petitioner is to approach the Competent Civil Court by moving an application under Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC.

¶6With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of. Order Date :- 13.10.2023 RKP High Court of Judicature at Allahabad