Bachcharam v. State of U.P. Thru. Collector /D.M. Distt. Gonda and 7 Others

Court No. - 2 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 5994 of 2025 Petitioner :- Bachcharam Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Collector /D.M. Distt. Gonda And 7 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ankur Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J. Hon'ble Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J.

¶1Heard Shri Ankur Pandey, learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for respondents No. 1 to 4.

¶2In light of the proposed order, notices to private respondents no.5 to 8 are dispensed with.

¶3By means of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following directions:- "i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus thereby commanding and directing the opposite Parties no. 1 to 4, in pursuance of the order dated 10.03.2025 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gonda in Civil Suit No.462/2025, Bachcharam v/s Mahadev and others, to restrain in the private opposite parties for further construction upon the land in question and maintain status-quo, during pendency of the civil suit, as contained in Annexure No.1 to this writ petition, in the interest of justice.

ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus thereby commanding and directing the opposite party no.3 to consider and decide the representation dated 31.05.2025 by reasoned and speaking order, as contained in Annexure No.5 to this writ petition."

¶4It is noticed that the petitioner has already filed a suit for permanent injunction on 20.02.2025 before Civil Judge (J.D.), Gonda which is registered as Civil Suit No.462 of 2025, titled as Bachcharam vs. Mahadev and others. It has further been stated that the petitioner has moved an application for injunction, the trial court by means of order dated 10.03.2025 has passed an order to maintain status quo for restraining the respondents from interfering in peaceful possession of the petitioner. The grievance of the petitioner as despite the injunction dated 10.03.2025, the private respondents are continuing to raise the constructions.

¶5This court is of the considered view that in case there is any violation of the injunction/interim injunction granted by the trial court, then the appropriate remedy for the petitioner is to approach by moving an application under Order 39 Rule 2A of the CPC and after considering all the material on record, the trial court is empowered to pass adequate orders ensuring compliance of his interim injunction. Apart from the above, the allegation of violation of interim injunction in the disputed question of fact which can not be decided in summary proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of the India and apart from the above, when the petitioner is already subjected himself to approach the trial court, it would be appropriate when appropriate application in this regard be moved before the trial court.

¶6Accordingly, the petition is disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to move appropriate application before the trial court under Order 39, Rule 2A within next two weeks. On receipt of the said application, the trial court shall proceed to consider and decide the same expeditiously. (Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J.) (Alok Mathur,J.) Order Date :- 23.6.2025 KR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench