Allahabad High Court Grants ₹1 Lakh Cost To Woman Illegally Dispossessed Of Her Property; Calls For Disciplinary Action Against Civil Judge
The Allahabad High Court on Monday granted Rs. 1 lakh cost to a lady and her three minor children who were illegally dispossessed of their property. In addition to directing restoration of possession, the Court directed that the order be placed before the Chief Justice for appropriate action against the Civil Judge (Junior Division) who granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favour of...
The Allahabad High Court on Monday granted Rs. 1 lakh cost to a lady and her three minor children who were illegally dispossessed of their property.
In addition to directing restoration of possession, the Court directed that the order be placed before the Chief Justice for appropriate action against the Civil Judge (Junior Division) who granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favour of the respondent, dispossessing the petitioner of her property without any opportunity of hearing.
Observing that there was colourable exercise of power by the administrative authorities as well the Civil Judge, the bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Gupta and Justice Arun Kumar held,
“We find that the trial court has exceeded its jurisdiction in passing order dated 05.02.2025 and the Administrative Authorities have equally erred in constituting a revenue team for delivering possession to respondent No. 8 and in thereafter dispossessing the defendants, including the petitioner herein, from the suit property, through the said team. It amounts to a gross abuse of the administrative powers and is wholly without jurisdiction.”
It held,
“The tearing hurry in which the matter has proceeded raises serious doubt about the bona fides of orders passed by the trial court and the action taken by the Administrative Authorities. The circumstances clearly warrant an enquiry on the administrative side.”
Petitioner with her husband and his family resided on the property in question and also ran a beauty parlour and a shop. Petitioner's husband and his brother fell into the bad company of Respondent No. 8- plaintiff who is a Peshkar in the Court of court of Chief Judicial Magistrate. Plaintiff illegally secured a sale deed from the petitioner's husband of their portion of undivided residential plot.
Plaintiff tried to exert force and force eviction through Tehsildar and Police, however, petitioner refused to vacate the house citing that it was an ancestral home and she resided there with her 3 minor children aged between 3-8 years. Thereafter, plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction against petitioner's husband and his brother wherein ex-parte interim injunction was granted restraining the defendants from taking possession of the property, breaking the lock, and from raising any construction.
There was no order to handover the possession to the plaintiff. Subsequently, the proceedings continued before the Tehsildar and the Civil Court. Meanwhile, the plaintiff filed an application under Section 151 CPC alleging that the defendants had forcefully taken possession of the property by breaking the lock placed by the plaintiff.
Accepting and hearing the application ex-parte, the Civil Court ordered the Police to ensure compliance of the interim injunction granted earlier. Petitioner approached the High Court seeking restoration of possession and appropriate action against authorities for violating law.
Respondent-plaintiff submitted before the Court that he was merely a clerk in the Copying Section and not a Peshkar, thereby, denying any closeness to the judge. It was also submitted that the plot was divided based on oral settlement and the two brothers had sold him their shares. It was argued that he had a put a lock on the room, but the petitioner and other family members broke the lock and forcefully took possession of the property.
The Court observed that in the suit no pleading was taken that the regarding the brothers being exclusive owners of the property and even the sale deed did not provide for a specific portion being sold. Further, the Court observed that in the application under Section 151 CPC, the plaintiff had not mentioned the date on which the petitioner broke the lock and entered the property.
Noting that the application was entertained the same day on which it was filed and allowed ex-parte, the Court observed that
“the trial court completely overlooked the mandatory provisions of Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC. Under the said provision, the court granting ex parte injunction is required to direct the plaintiff to take immediate steps to serve upon the defendants, by the registered post, copies of the application for injunction alongwith the supporting affidavit, a copy of the plaint, and copies of the documents relied upon and further to file, on the day such injunction was granted or on the immediately following day, an affidavit stating that copies have been duly delivered or dispatched.”
It held that without ensuring compliance of the mandatory provision, the application was decided ex-parte. The Court observed that thought the Trial Court has the power to restore status quo in certain cases, but was the same justified in this case without following mandatory procedural safeguards and without affording an opportunity of hearing to the affected parties.
“The aforesaid circumstances clearly demonstrate that the trial court proceeded in a cursory manner in utter disregard of the mandatory requirements of law. This court is constrained to observe that the manner in which the proceedings were conducted, leaves it unclear as to whether such a course was adopted out of ignorance of law or for reasons extraneous thereto.”
Noting that there was no order of the Trial Court to put the plaintiff in possession of the property, the Court observed that at the very least the defendants and the petitioner ought to have been put to notice of the application and granted an opportunity of hearing.
Noting that it was gross abuse of power by the Administrative authorities in dispossessing the petitioner, the Court held
“The tearing hurry in which the matter has proceeded raises serious doubt about the bona fides of orders passed by the trial court and the action taken by the Administrative Authorities. The circumstances clearly warrant an enquiry on the administrative side.”
Accordingly, the writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the authorities to restore possession of the property to the petitioner and awarded her Rs. 1 lakh, from the Plaintiff, for the mental trauma suffered by her and her children due to the illegal dispossession.
The Court further directed that the copy of the order be placed before the Chief Justice for consideration and for passing appropriate orders, if so deemed fit, for initiating disciplinary enquiry against the Civil Judge (Junior Division).
Case Title: Smt. Soni v. State of U.P. and 7 others[WRIT – C No. - 28263 of 2025]