The Constitution of India provides for the power of superintendence over all Courts and Tribunals throughout the territory by the High Courts: High court of Allahabad
The power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is exercised to keep the subordinate courts within the bounds of their authority, thus, this power is to be used sparingly. This case is held by the High court of Allahabad through the learned bench led by Single Bench: Hon’ble Mrs Sangeeta Chandra, J..In the matter of Shyam Sunder Rastogi Versus Rakesh Kumar And Others[MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. – 225 of 2022] dealt with an issue mentioned above. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the orders impugned dated 04.03.2021 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Sitapur in Application No.6C-2 filed in Suit No.811 of 209 by the petitioner and the order dated 06.12.2021 passed by the Additional District Judge, Sitapur in Misc. Appeal No.02 of 2021. The Court has heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length and it finds that there is a finding recorded in the orders impugned that the petitioner is the recorded tenure holder and he is in possession of the property in dispute. However, it has been observed that defendants are also tenure holders as their names also appear in the revenue records along with the petitioners, therefore no interim injunction can be granted against the co-sharers to the property. The court perused the facts and arguments presented in the case this petition is disposed of with a direction to the parties not to create any third party interest on the property in question for which the Regular Suit no.811 of 2019 has been filed. If any third party interest has been created after filing of the Suit and before passing of this order, it shall be subject to a final decision in Regular Suit No.811 of 2019.
Court No. 5 Case : MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. 225 of Petitioner : Shyam Sunder Rastogi Respondent : Rakesh Kumar And Others Counsel for Petitioner : Shiv Nath Tilhari Yogesh Kesarwani Counsel for Respondent : Punit Kumar Shukla Hon ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra J 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the orders impugned dated 04.03.2021 passed by learned Civil Judge of 2019. This Court disposed of the petitioner with certain directions on 05.11.2019 saying that the language of Order 39 Rule 1 clearly gives discretion to the trial court to pass orders even ex parte for maintenance of status quo. It directed the trial court to consider the application No.6Ga2 for temporary injunction at the earliest and till decision of such application directed maintenance of status quo between the parties The application for temporary injunction Paper No.6 C has now been rejected by the trial court The Appeal filed by the petitioner has also been rejected. Such orders have been challenged in this 5. This Court has heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length and it finds that there is a finding recorded in the orders impugned that the petitioner is the recorded tenure holder and he is in possession of the property in dispute. However it has been observed that defendants are also co tenure holders as their names also appear in the revenue records along with the petitioners therefore no interim injunction can be granted against the co sharers to the property 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner says that only anxiety of the petitioner is that defendants might sell off the property in question in absence of any 7. This petition is disposed of with a direction to the parties not to create any third party interest on the property in question for which the Regular Suit no.811 of 2019 has been filed. If any third party interest has been created after filing of the Suit and before passing of this order it shall be subject to final decision in Regular Suit No.811 of Order Date : 3.2.2022