Ravi Shankar Opadhyay And Another vs Jamuna Prasad on 25 March, 2026

Allahabad High Court

Ravi Shankar Opadhyay And Another vs Jamuna Prasad on 25 March, 2026

Author: Alok Mathur

Bench: Alok Mathur

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 


Neutral Citation No. - 2026:AHC-LKO:21299
 

 
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
LUCKNOW 
 
MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 1181 of 2026   
 
   Ravi Shankar Opadhyay And Another    
 
  .....Petitioner(s)   
 
 Versus  
 
   Jamuna Prasad    
 
  .....Respondent(s)       
 
   
 
  
 
Counsel for Petitioner(s)   
 
:   
 
Ashutosh Mishra   
 
  
 
Counsel for Respondent(s)   
 
:   
 
  
 
   
 
     
 
 Court No. - 5
 
   
 
 HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J.        

1. Heard Shri Ashutosh Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners.

2. In view of the order proposed to be passed, notice to private respondent, is dispensed with.

SPONSORED

3. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the respondent had filed a suit for injunction alongwith an application for interim injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 on 22.11.2001 pertaining to the residential property and Sehan land which the petitioners alleges to be their ancestral property. The suit was registered as Suit No. 1249 of 2021. It has been submitted on behalf of petitioners that in the said suit proceedings, a written statement was filed on 14.2.2003 by one Shri Shailendra Singh, Advocate purportedly holding out himself to be a counsel for the petitioners (defendants) in the suit and it is the case of the petitioners that they had never engaged Shri Shailendra Singh, Advocate nor had they filed the written statement in the aforesaid suit. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that all the signatures and vakalatnama as well as the written statement are forged and never have been executed by the petitioners. It is in the aforesaid circumstances that proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C. were also initiated by the petitioners which was registered as Misc Case No. 57 of 2003. It has further been stated that the file of the aforesaid case is also missing in which regard an inquiry has been constituted by District Judge, Sultanpur. He submitted that till date the inquiry proceedings is pending before the District Judge and even the proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C. are pending for consideration.

4. It is in the aforesaid circumstances the petitioners have moved an application before the Civil Judge (Junior Division) / FTC Sultanpur praying for staying of the suit proceedings till conclusion of the inquiry by the District Judge. The said application was moved on 29.8.2005. the application of the petitioner had been decided by means of order impugned dated 27.1.2026 where the request for staying of the suit has been rejected.

5. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that in case the suit proceedings are proceeded with then the same was liable to be decided on written statement which has not been filed by the petitioners and it will cause grave prejudice to the petitioners in case the suit proceedings are proceeded with and submit that till conclusion of the inquiry proceedings as well as the proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C. the proceedings of the suit should be stayed.

6. Considering the arguments of the petitioners we find no ground for interference in the order impugned. It is noticed that in case it is the case of the petitioners that the previous written statement has not filed by him he can withdraw the said application and file a fresh written statement with the leave of the court and there is no reason to keep the suit proceedings pending which we have noticed are pending for last 23 year only because of the facts as alleged by the petitioners that written statement was not filed by him. On such a simple issue we do not find any ground that the suit proceedings should be stayed. It was always open for the petitioners to distance themselves from filing of the previous written statement and it was certainly open for them to canvas this issue before the trial court but no such exercise has been done instead he has only sought to procrastinate the suit proceedings.

7. We do not appreciate such tactics deployed by the petitioners who are the defendants in the said proceedings. Accordingly for the aforesaid reasons, we do not incline to interfere in the order impugned. The petition is devoid of merit, accordingly the petition is dismissed.

8. The trial court is directed to proceed to decide the suit proceedings at the earliest in accordance with law after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned.

(Alok Mathur,J.)

March 25, 2026

J. K. Dinkar