Harikrishan And 2 Others vs Swaraj Singh And 30 Others
- Neutral2026:AHC:109584
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
An application for extension of an interim injunction order must be decided by the court after hearing the parties, and the court shall not grant unnecessary adjournments in deciding such applications; any adjournment granted must be considered on the next date fixed, or if not then, on a subsequent date fixed by the court. Once a suit has been dismissed and thereafter restored to its original number, the plaintiff/petitioner is entitled to take the position that the status quo existing prior to the dismissal shall continue, including the subsistence of any interim order that was in force before dismissal.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
1. Heard Shri Sandeep Kumar, learned counsel for the plaintiff/petitioners.
2. In view of the order, which is being proposed to be passed today, notices are not being issued to the respondents.
3. The instant petition has been filed for the following reliefs:-
"I. Set aside the impugned order dated 29.05.2026 passed by learned Civil Judge, (Jr.D.), Mainpuri in Original Suit No. 634 of 2010, (Harikrishan vs. Swaraj Singh and others);
II. Direct the learned trial court/Civil Judge, (Jr.D.), Mainpuri to pass an order on the application dated 21.01.2026 submitted by the petitioners within stipulated period and till then the parties may be directed to maintain status quo over the land in dispute of the suit property."
4. The case of the plaintiff/petitioners is that the plaintiff/petitioners had instituted an Original Suit No. 634 of 2010, seeking relief for cancellation of the sale deed along with an injunction and in the said suit a temporary injunction came to be passed. However, the said suit was dismissed in default on 19.7.2022 and thereafter the same was restored on 14.3.2023. However, according to the learned counsel for the plaintiff/petitioner, on an application, moved by the defendant/respondent dated 29.5.2025, an order came to be passed on 29.5.2025 whereby it was opined that since there was no application for extension of the temporary injunction, thus it was not being extended.
5. Learned counsel for the plaintiff/petitioners submits that an application has already been moved on 21.1.2026 for extension of the temporary injunction.
6. In the opinion of the Court, once an application has been preferred for extension of injunction order, then an order is to be passed after hearing the parties.
7. Accordingly, it is provided that the court below shall decide the said application or any other application, so preferred by the plaintiff/petitioner for extension of interim order, in accordance with the law without granting unnecessary adjournment, subject to legal impediment. In case there is adjournment then it shall be considered on the next date fixed and if not on the next date then on the other date fixed by the court.
8. It is always open for the plaintiff/petitioners to take ground that once the suit stood restored to its original number then the position, so existed prior to dismissal of the suit, shall continue.
(Vikas Budhwar,J.)
May 7, 2026
Vandana
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free