22 May vs Gurdayal Singh Saini And Another
2025 Latest Caselaw 2768 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

22 May vs Gurdayal Singh Saini And Another on 22 May, 2025

Author: Manoj Kumar Tiwari

Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari

                                                           2025:UHC:4296



HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
        Writ Petition Misc. Single No. 1252 of 2025
                           22 May, 2025
Kulwant Kaur and another                              --Petitioners
                               Versus

Gurdayal Singh Saini and another                   --Respondents
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Bhupesh Kandpal, learned counsel for the petitioner.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

                           JUDGMENT

Petitioners are plaintiffs in Civil Suit No. 08 of

2025. They have challenged the order dated

07.04.2025 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior

Division), Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar,

whereby their application under Section 151 CPC for

interim relief was rejected. In the said application,

petitioners had prayed that defendant be restrained

from interfering with their operations over the property

in question.

2. This Court does not find any reason to

interfere with the impugned order. Learned Trial Court

has considered the fact that petitioners filed suit under

Section 209 of Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms

Act, 1950 for eviction of the defendant, which implies

that petitioners admitted possession of the defendant.

In such view of the matter, learned Trial Court was

2025:UHC:4296 justified in inferring that petitioners are not in

possession, therefore, the interim relief, which

petitioners sought by their application under Section

151 CPC was rightly denied.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied

upon a judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court

in Civil Appeal No. 13001 of 2024 (Ramakant Ambalal

Choksi v. Harish Ambalal Choksi).

4. The facts of the said case are entirely

different, therefore, it do not help the petitioners.

Petitioners had not sought direction to the defendant

not to create third party interest over the said property,

and they wanted Court order for getting possession

over the property.

5. Even otherwise also, the order passed by

learned Trial Court is discretionary in nature, therefore,

this Court do not find any good ground to interfere in

the matter.

6. Thus, there is no scope for interference with

the impugned order, passed by learned Trial Court. The

writ petition fails and is dismissed.

________________________ MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, J.

Navin