Uttarakhand High Court
Unknown vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 13 August, 2025
2025:UHC:7125-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. G. NARENDAR
AND
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE MR. ALOK MAHRA
Special Appeal No. 201 of 2025
13th August, 2025
Manisha Sah ............Appellant
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand and Others .......Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. T.P.S. Takuli, learned counsel for the appellant.
Mr. Yogesh Tiwari, learned Addl. C.S.C. for the State of
Uttarakhand.
Ms. Abhilasha Tomar, learned counsel holding brief of Mr. Sandeep
Kothari, learned counsel for respondent no.3.
Mr. Rahul Consul, learned counsel for respondent no.4.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
JUDGMENT :
(per G. NARENDAR, J.)
Heard learned counsel for the appellant
and learned State counsel and learned counsel for
private respondents.
2. A bare reading of the facts would disclose
that it is an inter-se dispute between two private
persons, wherein one of the private parties has
taken the aid of the Secretary, District Level
Development Authority to issue proceedings,
2025:UHC:7125-DB
which is injunctive in nature and thereby
restraining the Sub-Registrar from performing and
discharging his duty of carrying out registrations
and cancellation of registrations etc. relating to a
property in respect of which both parties claim
certain interest under a certain arrangement.
3. The 3rd respondent has fairly admitted
before the learned Single Judge that he does not
possess such power to injunct the Sub-Registrar
from proceeding forward with the discharge of his
duties.
4. The crux of the dispute lies in and arises
out of a business transaction alleged to have been
entered into, between the appellant herein and
the 4th respondent. If the parties are aggrieved by
any differences pr discord or disagreement arising
out of their transaction, the appropriate forum
would be the Civil Court and it is not for the
Authorities or this Court under Article 226 to
entertain and adjudicate a dispute, which is
private in nature.
2025:UHC:7125-DB
5. In that view of the matter, the appeal, in
our considered opinion, is misconceived and is,
accordingly, rejected. Rejection of the appeal shall
not come in the way of the parties having resort
to remedy before the appropriate Court/Forum.
6. It is also pertinent to note that the
learned Single Judge has restrained itself to the
legality of the action of the 3rd respondent
directing the Sub-Registrar not to discharge his
duty.
7. It is further made clear that the
observation hereinabove are for the disposal of
the appeal only, and if the parties choose to
approach any Forum or Court, the same shall be
considered and disposed of strictly in accordance
with law and on its own merits, without being
influenced by any observations made by this Court
or by the learned Single Judge.
(G. NARENDAR, C. J.)
(ALOK MAHRA, J.)
Dated: 13.08.2025
Mamta
2025:UHC:7125-DB
