Uttarakhand High Court
25 August vs Shiv Singh on 25 August, 2025
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
2025:UHC:7512
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition Misc. Single No. 2155 of 2024
25 August, 2025
Hari Singh & others
--Petitioners
Versus
Shiv Singh
--Respondent
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Neeraj Garg, learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants.
Mr. Nikhil Singhal, learned counsel for the respondent nos.1/1, ½
& 1/3/plaintiffs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
By means of the present writ petition, petitioners
have sought the following reliefs:-
"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of
certiorari quashing impugned judgment and order dated
20.07.2024 passed by learned 2nd Additional District
Judge, Rudrapur, Udham Singh Nagar, in Misc. Civil
Appeal No.37 of 2019, Hari Singh & others vs. Shiv
Singh (deceased) through LRs (Annexure no.1 to the writ
petition), further allowing the Misc. Civil Appeal filed by
the defendants/petitioners for the relief claimed.
(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of
certiorari quashing impugned order dated 29.07.2019
passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Rudrapur,
Udham Singh Nagar, in OS No.57 of 2016, Shiv Singh
vs. Hari Singh & others (Annexure No.2 to the writ
petition)."
2. Brief facts of the case are that an Original Suit
No.57 of 2016, Shiv Singh vs. Hari Singh & others was filed
by the respondents/plaintiffs in the court of Civil Judge
2025:UHC:7512
(J.D.), Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar for
permanent injunction. Along with the said suit, the
respondents/plaintiffs also filed an application for a
temporary injunction (Paper No. 6C) to restrain the
petitioners/defendants from interfering with the alleged
possession of the disputed land. The said application of the
respondents/plaintiffs was allowed ex parte by the learned
trial court vide judgment and order dated 29.07.2019, after
hearing both parties, thereby restraining the
petitioners/defendants from interfering with the property in
question. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the
petitioners/defendants preferred an appeal which was
registered at Misc. Civil Appeal No.37 of 2019, Hari Singh &
others vs. Shiv Singh. The said misc. civil appeal was also
dismissed by learned appellate court i.e. Additional District
Judge, Rudrapur, Udham Singh Nagar. It is feeling
aggrieved by both the orders, petitioners/defendants are
before this Court.
3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the
petitioners/defendants that, although it is admitted that
the property in dispute was purchased by the
respondents/plaintiffs through a registered sale deed dated
03.03.2015, the record reflects that the
respondents/plaintiffs are not in possession of the said
land. He placed reliance on the report of the Lekhpal, which
indicates that the respondents/plaintiffs were not in
possession of the property. He further contends that the
mutation made in favour of the respondents/plaintiffs was
subsequently cancelled. Since the respondents/plaintiffs
were not in possession of the property, no injunction could
have been granted to them. He relied upon the judgment of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bruce vs. Silva Raj &
Others, reported in 1987 (Supp) SCC 161, and specifically
referred to paragraph 5 of the said judgment to buttress his
2025:UHC:7512
point.
4. The reliance placed by the learned counsel for
the petitioners/defendants on the aforesaid case law is
wholly misconceived, as the judgment cited pertains to a
final injunction granted by the court, whereas the present
matter concerns a temporary injunction. If temporary
injunction is not granted in favour of
respondents/plaintiffs, the suit would render infructuous.
5. Since the respondents/plaintiffs have filed the
suit with the averment that they purchased the land in
question and are in possession of the suit property and
their names are recorded in khasara, this Court does not
find any illegality in the grant of the temporary injunction
order in their favour. Accordingly, the writ petition lacks
merit and is hereby dismissed.
6. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of
accordingly.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
25.08.2025
AK
.
