HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Sahanwaz Ahmad .....Petitioner(s)

Versus State Of U.P. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Anil Kumar Tyagi, Sr. Advocate, Vishesh Rajvanshi Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.

Court No. - 36 HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR, J.

1. Heard Sri Vishesh Rajvanshi, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondent nos.1 and 2.

2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that in Original Suit No.1053 of 2021, a compromise was filed between the parties. The said compromise alongwith the suit was placed before the National Lok Adalat for passing consequential orders. The National Lok Adalat by the order dated 12.3.2022 decided the suit on the basis of compromise. On the basis of the order of the National Lok Adalat, a final decree was prepared by the trial court on 24.3.2022. The petitioner filed an application under Order XXII Rule 3-A read with Section 151 C.P.C. for declaring the compromise unlawful. The said application was rejected by the order dated 6.7.2023. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed revision, which was dismissed by the order dated 29.8.2025. The petitioner has challenged the aforesaid orders dated 6.7.2023 and 29.8.2025 before this Court in Matters Under Article 227 No. 16445 of 2025, in which following order has been passed on 14.1.2026:- "1. This petition has been filed for the following relief:

"1. To set aside the impugned final decree in original Suit No.1053 of

2021 (Annexure No.6) and Order dated 06.07.2023 passed by the trail

Court in Case No.572 of 2022 (Shahnawaz Ahmad versus Naushad

Akhtar) rejecting the application of the applicant/defendant under Order

23 Rule 3(A) read with Section 151 CPC (Annexure 8).

2. To set aside the impugned Order dated 29.08.2025 passed in Civil Revision No.90 of 2023 (Shahnawaz Ahmad versus Naushad Akhtar)

dismissing the revision of applicant/defendant (Annexure 10)."

2. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that a suit was instituted for mandatory injunction restraining the defendant-petitioner from interfering with the property in dispute on the basis of oral Hiba executed by the defendant-petitioner in favour of the plaintiff-respondent, who is the real brother of the petitioner, of the entire business of the petitioner, which was being jointly run earlier. The suit was instituted on 11.10.2021 and on 25.10.2021, written statement was filed admitting the claim of the plaintiff-respondent. Thereafter, a compromise was filed on 20.11.2021 allegedly signed by the petitioner and ultimately by judgment and decree dated 12.03.2022, the said suit was decreed in the Lok Adalat. After coming to know about said decree, the petitioner moved an application for recall of the judgment and decree on the ground that the petitioner never filed any application or the affidavit and the entire exercise was done by the plaintiff without informing the petitioner. Taking advantage of the fact that they were running the business jointly, plaintiff got certain blank documents signed from the petitioner and his wife. The petitioner also denied the engagement of counsel, who appeared on his behalf before the court below. The application filed by the petitioner was rejected and the revision filed by the petitioner has also been dismissed. It has been further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that there was no occasion for the petitioner to gift the business property to the plaintiff-respondent as the petitioner has a wife and children and the entire exercise is based on fraud. 3. Matter requires consideration.

4. Issue notice to the respondents. Steps be taken within three days.

5. List on the date fixed in the notice.

6. In the meantime, parties may exchange their affidavits.

7. Till the next date of listing, parties are directed to maintain status quo and are restrained from alienating the property in dispute. "

3. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order of Natio