Uttarakhand High Court
Unknown vs Prakash Chandra Pant And Another on 23 April, 2021
Office Notes,
reports, orders or
proceedings or
SL. No Date COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
directions and
Registrar's order
with Signatures
WPMS No. 949 of 2021
Hon'ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.
(Through Video Conferencing)
Mr. Sarvesh Agarwal, Advocate for the
petitioners.
The petitioners before this Court are the
defendants in Suit No. 22 of 2020, Anita Devi Vs.
Prakash Chandra Pant and another, which was
filed by the plaintiff/respondent before the Court of
Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kotdwar, District
Pauri Garhwal. In the said Suit, the plaintiff has
contended that she is the owner of the property in
dispute, lying in khata No.31, Khet No. 62/2, 67/1,
69/2, having a total area of 0.016 hectares, which
she contends that she had purchased it by virtue of
the registered sale deed 12.12.2017.
It was further the case of the
plaintiff/respondent that under the strength of the
sale deed, she got her name mutated in the revenue
records on culmination of the proceedings of
Mutation Case No. 391 of 2017-18.
Its on the consideration of the aforesaid
prima face case, the learned Trial Court had
granted the temporary injunction, under Order 39
Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC, by one of the impugned
orders under challenge, i.e. dated 28th October,
2020, passed by the Court of Civil Judge (Senior
Division), Kotdwar.
The said order of the learned Trial Court
granting the temporary injunction in favour of the
plaintiff/respondent, was put to challenge by the
defendant/petitioner in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 9
of 2020, which she has preferred by invoking the
provisions contained under Order 43 (1) (r) of the
CPC, which too has been dismissed by the
impugned judgment of 9th April, 2021, which is
under challenge before this Court.
As per the concurrent findings of facts,
which has been recorded by both the Courts
below, the fact which is reflected is that the
plaintiff/respondent under the strength of the sale
deed dated 12.12.2017, is a recorded owner of the
property, which is the fact which has been dealt
with above, and the chauhadi of which has been
given in the sale deed itself, describing the
precincts of the disputed property.
Since it is concurrent findings of fact
recorded, it may not be conducive that the Writ
Court in the exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,
while deciding the matter in the light of the
judgment of Full Bench of Allahabad High Court
reported in AIR 1991 ALL. 114, Ganga Saran
Vs. Civil Judge, Hapur, Ghaziabad and others,
to venture into the finding of facts concurrently
recorded by the Courts.
In that view of the matter, the learned
counsel for the petitioner submits that an
appropriate direction may be issued to the learned
Trial Court to expedite the proceedings of the Suit
itself.
Without venturing into the merits of the
matter, and observing thereof that any finding
which has been recorded above may not prejudice
the mind of the Trial Court, while deciding the Suit
itself on its merit, the present Writ Petition, is
being disposed of with the request to the Civil
Judge (Senior Division), Kotdwar, to decide the
Civil Suit, being Suit No. 22 of 2020, Anita Devi
Vs. Prakash Chandra Pant and another, as
expeditiously as possible but not later than nine
months from the date of production of certified
copy of this judgment.
However, it is made clear that this period of
nine months directing the Trial Court to decide the
Suit would obviously be exclusive of the period for
which the proceedings of the subordinate Courts,
are exempted on account of the restriction imposed
by the directions issued by the High Court on
account of pandemic situation.
All the terms and conditions, which have
been imposed by the learned Appellate Court's
order of 9th April, 2021, would be ensured to be
complied with by the plaintiffs.
(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.)
Dated 03.05.2021
Shiv
