[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Uttarakhand High Court
Unknown vs Mukesh Sharma And Ors. (Annexure No.18) on 22 December, 2025
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
Office Notes, reports,
orders or proceedings or
SL.
Date directions and COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No
Registrar's order with
Signatures
WPMS No.3551 of 2025
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
Mr. Sagar Kothari, learned counsel
for petitioner-plaintiff.
2. By means of present writ petition,
petitioner-plaintiff has .
3. Ms. Anjali Bhargava, learned counsel
for respondent No.2.
4. This writ petition has been filed under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India,
petitioner-plaintiff has sought for the
following reliefs:
(i). Issue order or direction, partly setting-aside the
order dated 12.12.2025 passed by learned Civil
Judge (Sr. Div.), Dehradun, in Original Suit
No.1547 of 2025 Smt. Subhra Mahant Vs. Smt.
Mukesh Sharma And Ors. (Annexure No.18),
whereby, learned Trial Court has simpliciter issued
notices to the defendants/respondents without
granting ad interim injunction by directing the
defendants/respondents without granting ad
interim injunction by directing the
defendants/respondents to maintain status quo
qua the nature and possession of the suit
property.
(ii). Issue an order or direction, directing the court of
learned Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Dehradun to decide
and conclude the proceedings of temporary
injunction application filed in Original Suit No.1547
of 2025 Smt. Subhra Mahant Vs. Smt. Mukesh
Sharma And Ors., as expeditiously as possible, or
within the stipulated time granted by this Hon'ble
Court, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and
proper in the present circumstances of the case,
and till the adjudication on the said application,
the defendants/respondents by directed to
maintain status quo qua the nature and
possession of the suit property.
5. It is contended by learned counsel for
petitioner-plaintiff that petitioner-plaintiff
has filed Original Suit No.1547 of 2025 in
the Court of learned Civil Judge (Sr.
Div.), Dehradun, for declaration that sale
deeds executed by respondent-defendant
Nos.1 and 2 in favour of respondent-
defendant Nos.3 to 12 be declared as null
and void and for permanent injunction.
6. The basis of filing of suit, according
to learned counsel for petitioner, is that
petitioner-plaintiff became owner of the
land in-question subject matter of the
sale deeds, on the strength of a
registered will dated 06.11.1981,
annexed as Annexure No.1 (Pg. 24),
executed by Late Sudha Mai, whereby,
land in-question was transferred in favour
of petitioner-plaintiff and her name was
also recorded in the Nagar Nigam records
in respect of aforesaid land in-question.
7. Learned counsel for petitioner further
submits that respondent-defendant Nos.1
and 2 got mutated the aforesaid land in-
question in the revenue records in their
name vide judgment and order dated
09.07.2025 passed by learned Tehsildar,
Dehraudn. Within two days of the said
mutation, entire land in-question was
sold by respondent-defendant Nos.1 and
2 in favour of respondent-defendant
Nos.3 to 12 by registered sale deed.
8. It is contended by learned counsel for
petitioner that consideration of land in-
question sold, is very much less even to
the Circle Rate.
9. On these averments, the suit was
filed and along with the suit, application
under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC was also
moved for restraining respondents-
defendants to create any third party
interest in respect of the land in-question.
10. On the said application, learned Trial
Court was pleased to issue notice to
respondents-defendants, however,
respondent-defendant No.2 was present
as caveator in suit and objection was
called from the respondents to the
application filed under Order 39 Rule 1
and 2 CPC. Ad interim injunction sought
by petitioner-plaintiff was refused. It is
feeling aggrieved, the petitioner-plaintiff
is before this Court.
11. It is further contended by learned
counsel for petitioner that the said land
in-question is costly land and the same
has been sold by respondent-defendant
Nos.1 and 2 hurriedly to the persons from
outside the State on consideration, which
is less than the Circle Rate prevailing in
area. The land was in possession of the
petitioner-plaintiff and further, her name
was recorded in Nagar Nigam record, but,
somehow, respondent-plaintiff Nos.1 and
2 managed to mutate the land in their
name. Petitioner was not even made
party in the mutation proceedings. The
apprehension in the mind of petitioner
that till the application under Order 39
Rule 1 and 2 CPC would be decided, the
land in-question may be further
transferred which will create multiplicity
of the proceedings, and therefore, he
prays for some interim protection.
12. Having heard the learned counsel for
parties and having perused the record
and in the background on the peculiar
facts of the case, this Court is of the view
that till the application under Order 39
Rule 1 & 2 CPC is decided, respondents-
defendants shall not create any third
party interest in respect of the property
in-question.
13. Issue notice to respondents-
defendants, returnable within four weeks.
14. Steps to be taken within 03 days.
15. Put up on 19.03.2026.
16. Meanwhile, respondents-defendants
may file counter affidavit(s).
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
22.12.2025
PN
