[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Uttarakhand High Court
23 December vs Vidyapati & Others on 23 December, 2025
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
2025:UHC:11487
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition Misc. Single No. 3564 of 2025
23 December, 2025
Abhay Kumar
--Petitioner
Versus
Vidyapati & others
--Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. D.C.S. Rawat, learned counsel for the petitioner.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral)
By means of the present writ petition,
petitioner seeks following reliefs:-
"(i) Set-aside the part of the order dated 11.09.2025 (annexure no.4)
passed by learned court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kotdwar,
District Pauri Garhwal in Original Suit No.88 of 2025, Abhay Kumar
vs. Vidyapati & others, whereby the learned trial court failed to
grant ex-parte temporary injunction in favour of the
plaintiff/petitioner and merely issued notices to the
defendants/respondents.
(ii) Set-aside the order dated 06.12.2025 (annexure-4) passed by
learned court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kotdwar, District Pauri
Garhwal in Original Suit No.88 of 2025, Abhay Kumar vs. Vidyapati
& others, whereby the learned trial court rejected the application
dated 06.12.2025 filed by the petitioner for restraining the
defendants/respondents from changing the nature of the property
in question or interfering in any manner or attempting to take illegal
possession by force or cause any such act to be done in the property
in question;
(iii) Allow the application dated 06.12.2025 filed by the petitioner
and restrain the defendants/respondents from changing the nature
of the property in-question or interfering in any manner or
2025:UHC:11487
attempting to take illegal possession by force or cause any such act
to be done in the property and/or direct the learned trial court to
decide the temporary injunction application on the next date fixed or
at the earliest within time bound period as may be fixed by this
Hon'ble Court."
2. At the outset, learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that he does not wish to press the writ
petition insofar as prayer no. (i) is concerned, whereby a
prayer was made to set aside the order dated 11.09.2025
to the extent that the ex parte temporary injunction in
favour of the petitioner/plaintiff was refused and only
notices were issued to the respondent/defendant.
3. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as
not pressed insofar as prayer no. (i) is concerned.
4. Insofar as prayer no. (ii) is concerned, learned
counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff contends that the
petitioner/plaintiff was denied an ex-parte temporary
injunction, and that an application dated 06.12.2025
was filed by the petitioner seeking injunction, as
respondent nos. 16, 17, 18, 19, 27 and 28 were
represented by learned Advocate Mr. Amit Sajwan. The
said application was rejected by the learned Civil Judge,
J.D., Kotdwar, Pauri Garhwal, vide the impugned
judgment and order dated 06.12.2025, whereby the
respondents were directed to take steps for service upon
the unserved defendants and the case was fixed for filing
of written statement/objection on 23.12.2025.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff
submits that there is an apprehension in the mind of the
petitioner/plaintiff that, in the garb of the said order, the
temporary injunction application moved by the
petitioner/plaintiff may be rejected.
2025:UHC:11487
6. The apprehension expressed by learned
counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff is misconceived and is
accordingly rejected.
7. The petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment
only to the extent that it states that permanent
injunction shall be granted to the petitioner/plaintiff only
after evidence is adduced by both the parties. There is
nothing erroneous in the observation made by the trial
court. By the impugned order dated 06.12.2025, the
learned trial court has not acted in any manner adverse
to the interest of the petitioner/plaintiff, except for fixing
the case for filing of written statement/objection on the
temporary injunction application and directing the
petitioner to serve the un-served
respondents/defendants. Thus, no interference is
required in the matter. Accordingly, the present writ
petition is dismissed in-limine.
8. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of
accordingly.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
23.12.2025
AK
