Uttarakhand High Court

SA/156/2024 on 6 May, 2025

Author: Vivek Bharti Sharma

Bench: Vivek Bharti Sharma

                      Office Notes,
                   reports, orders or
SL.                 proceedings or
No.
         Date
                     directions and                       COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
                   Registrar's order
                    with Signatures
      06.05.2025                        S.A. No. 156 of 2024

                                        Hon'ble Vivek Bharti Sharma, J.

Ms. Sakshi Gaur proxy counsel through Video Conferencing for Mr. Kshitij Mudgal and Mr. Kailash Chandra, learned counsel for the appellant.

2. Mr. Siddhartha Singh, learned counsel for respondent nos.1 & 2.

3. Mr. Rahul Consul, learned counsel for respondent no.4.

4. No representation for respondent no.3.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant seeks adjournment on the ground that the arguing counsel is not available and prayer is also made for extension of the interim order dated 10.01.2025, whereby this Court has stayed the effect and operation of the impugned judgment and decree dated 31.08.2024 passed by the learned 2nd Additional District Judge, Dehradun in Civil Appeal No. 71 of 2019 till the next date of listing.

6. The request for extension of interim order dated 10.01.2025 vehemently opposed by learned counsel for respondent nos.1 & 2 on the ground that the respondent nos. 1 & 2 were not served with the notice or heard when the interim order dated 10.01.2025 was passed.

He would further submit that the suit was instituted by respondent no. 3 against the present appellant, seeking cancellation of the sale deed executed by respondent no. 3 in favour of the appellant; that, the original suit was dismissed by the Trial Court; that, however, in Civil Appeal No. 71 of 2019, the appeal was allowed by the impugned judgment and decree dated 31.08.2024; that, consequently, the decree of cancellation of the sale deed executed by respondent no. 3 in favour of the appellant, was passed.

7. Learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 & 2 would further submit that the cancelled sale deed pertains to a portion of public road adjacent to the properties of respondent nos. 1 and 2 as well as the appellant, therefore, respondent nos. 1 and 2 are directly affected by the interim order dated 10.01.2025 by this Court, which was passed in their absence. It is thus contended that the said interim order ought not to be extended by adjournment order without affording them an opportunity to be heard on the stay application.

Learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 2 seeks and is granted time to file reply/objection to the grounds of the appeal.

8. List this case on 29.07.2025 for hearing on admission.

9. It is clarified that there is no stay on the operation of the impugned judgment and order.

(Vivek Bharti Sharma, J.) 06.05.2025 Mamta