Uttarakhand High Court
SA/3/2026 on 19 February, 2026
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
SL.
Date or directions COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No
and Registrar's
order with
Signatures
SA No.3 of 2026
Hon'ble Siddhartha Sah, J.
Mr. V.K. Kapruwan, Standing Counsel for the Union of India/appellants.
2. Mr. Sagar Kothari, Advocate for the caveator/respondent nos.1 to 3.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and after going through the record, it transpires that initially the suit for mandatory and permanent injunction was instituted by the plaintiffs in the court of Civil Judge (S.D.), Vikas Nagar, District Dehradun which was dismissed by judgment and order dated 28.02.2024.
4. Issue No.1 therein was decided in favour of the plaintiff. Issue Nos.2 and 3 were decided in terms that until the time, the boundaries are not determined between the parties, it cannot be said how much land is in the possession of the plaintiff or the defendant. Thus the trial court proceeded to dismiss the suit.
5. Aggrieved against the said dismissal, the plaintiff carried the matter in appeal. The first appellate court vide the impugned judgment and order dated 18.12.2025 has allowed the said appeal and set aside the judgment of the trial court and has decreed the suit of the plaintiff/respondent herein.
6. The counsel for the appellants has taken the court through the record and has also particularly drawn the attention of the Court to the statement of Revenue Sub Inspector, Tehsil Kalsi and has made a submission that the defence ministry has taken the possession by putting up tents in property in question. He has further drawn the attention of the Court to the statement in which it has been stated that there is also boundary dispute.
7. Learned counsel for the plaintiff/respondent does not deny that the defendants/appellants are in possession of the suit property.
8. In such view of the matter, admit on following substantial question of law:-
1. As to whether the impugned judgment passed by the learned First Appellate Court is in violation of the provision of order 41 Rule 31 of the CPC?
2. "As to whether the suit of the plaintiff for mandatory and permanent injunction could have been decreed since there was ambiguity regarding the exact boundaries of the land in question?
9. Mr. Sagar Kothari, Advocate has accepted the notice for respondent nos.1 to
3.
10. Issue notice to the respondent no.4. Steps to be taken within 5 days.
11. Summon the trial court record.
12. List this case on 17.04.2026.
13. Till the next date of listing, the effect and operation of the impugned judgment dated 18.12.2025 shall remain stayed.
[ (Siddhartha Sah, J.) 19.02.2026 Ravi