Sidhnath Rai vs State Of Up And 2 Others on 25 February, 2026

Allahabad High Court

Sidhnath Rai vs State Of Up And 2 Others on 25 February, 2026

Author: Samit Gopal

Bench: Samit Gopal

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


Neutral Citation No. - 2026:AHC:42260
 

 
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD 
 
MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 2522 of 2026   
 
   Sidhnath Rai    
 
  .....Petitioner(s)   
 
 Versus  
 
   State Of Up And 2 Others    
 
  .....Respondent(s)       
 
   
 
  
 
Counsel for Petitioner(s)   
 
:   
 
Rajeev Kumar Upadhyay   
 
  
 
Counsel for Respondent(s)   
 
:   
 
G.A.   
 
     
 
 Court No. - 53
 
   
 
 HON'BLE SAMIT GOPAL, J.     

1. List revised.

2. Vakalatnama filed by Sri Anurag Rai, Advocate on behalf of the respondent no.3 is taken on record.

SPONSORED

3. Heard Sri Rajeev Kumar Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Anurag Rai, learned counsel for the respondent no.3 and Sri Bade Lal Bind, learned counsel for the State and perused the material on record.

4. Notice on behalf of the respondent nos. 1 & 2 has been accepted by the learned State counsel.

5. The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner- Sidhnath Rai, with the prayer to issue a direction in nature by directing the revisional court to stay the effect and operation of impugned order dated 11.08.2025 passed by the respondent no. 2 in Case No. 4005/2025 U/s 152 of B.N.S.S. (133 of Cr.P.C.) by complying the provisions of under section 438 of B.N.S.S. Issue a direction by restraining the respondents and their agents not to interfere in peaceful possession of the petitioner upon the Gata Nos. 229 & 230, situated at Village- Baghrai, Tehsil Bansgaon, District Gorakhpur, being his personal property upon which proceeding under Sections 152 B.N.S.S. would not lie. And / or pass such other and further order which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.

6. The submission as advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner is that an order dated 11.08.2025 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bansgaon, Gorakhpur was subjected to challenge in a revision before the District Judge, Gorakhpur numbered as Criminal Revision No. 260 / 2025 (Sidhnath Rai Vs. Suryajeet Rai and another) in which an application for stay dated 19.08.2025 of the impugned order was also filed along with an affidavit which were numbered as Paper No.8 kha and 9 Kha respectively but the revisional court although admitted the said revision, registered the same and issued notice to the respondents but did not pass any order on the stay application. It is submitted that the same thus affects the petitioner seriously. The fact that no order has been passed on the stay application has been shown from the order dated 19.08.2025 passed by the Sessions Judge, Gorakhpur, the certified copy of which is at page 51 of the paper-book. It is submitted that as such the revisional court committed an error in not passing any order on the stay application and kept it pending despite admitting the said revision.

7. The fact that the stay application is pending no order has been passed has not been disputed by learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the respondent no.3.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the prayers made in the present petition are not pressed but the prayer in the petition is that appropriate orders be passed directing the revisional court to decide the said application of the petitioner forthwith.

9. In view of the limited prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner, the prayer made in the present petition is dismissed as not pressed, however, it is provided that the revisional court shall decide the application for stay numbered as Paper No.8 kha and 9 Kha within a period of two weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.

10. Till the time the said application is decided or for a period of two weeks whichever is earlier status quo as on date shall be maintained in the matter.

11. The petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid direction.

12. The petitioner is directed to produce the certified copy of this order before the revisional court within a period of one week from today for its compliance failing which the directions as issued including the order of status quo shall not be given effect to.

(Samit Gopal,J.)

February 25, 2026

AS Rathore