Uttarakhand High Court
Balbeer Singh vs Shekhar Gupta And Others As Well As Order on 15 October, 2025
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
`
Office Notes,
reports, orders or
SL. proceedings or
Date COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No directions and
Registrar's order
with Signatures
WPMS No.2922 of 2025
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
Mr. Ramji Shrivastava, Advocate for the petitioner.
2. Mr. Piyush Garg, Advocate for the respondents.
3. This writ petition has been filed under Article 227 of
the Constitution of India by the petitioner, whereby he has
sought a direction to set aside the order dated 18.09.2025
(annexure no.8), passed by learned Ist Additional District
Judge, Rishikesh in Misc. Civil Appeal No.7 of 2024, Mahant
Balbeer Singh Vs. Shekhar Gupta and others as well as order
dated 01.04.2025 (annexure no.6), passed by learned Civil
Judge (J.D.) Rishikesh in Original Suit No.99 of 2022,
Mahant Balbeer Singh Vs. Shekhar Gupta and others.
4. It is the case of the petitioner that he is the lawful
owner of the property bearing Nagar Palika No.1/5 Ghat
Road, Rishikesh, Dehradun, at Khasra No.53. The petitioner
after sanctioning the map from Haridwar Development
Authority constructed shops at the ground floor and with
that he constructed a tube-well over the said property.
Thereafter the petitioner-plaintiff sold the entire first floor
(roof rights) to the respondent-defendant nos.1 and 2 vide
registered sale deed dated 29.10.2025. The petitioner-
plaintiff later on found mentioned in the said sale deed that
tube-well and the staircase will be used only by the
purchaser i.e., respondent-defendant nos.1 and 2.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff submits
that this fraudulent act of the respondent-defendants came
to the knowledge of the petitioner-plaintiff only on January,
2022. The petitioner being left with no other option filed an
Original Suit No. 99 of 2022 before the learned Civil Judge
(J.D.), Rishikesh, Dehradun under Section 26 of Specific
Relief Act, 1963 on 23.12.2022. The petitioner-plaintiff
prayed for amendment of the sale deed dated 29.10.2005
and also filed a Temporary Injunction Application No.6C2
under the provisions contained under Order 39 Rule 1 and
2 of C.P.C. praying for the restriction of the respondents-
defendants for the sole use of the property i.e. staircase and
tube-well.
6. In the aforesaid suit trial court issued notices to the
respondents-defendants to which they filed their written
statements/objections denying each and every averment
made in the plaint. The trial court on 01.04.2024 rejected
the Temporary Injunction Application No.6C2 of the
petitioner-plaintiff. Misc. Civil Appeal No.7 of 2024 there
against met the same fate. Now the petitioner-plaintiff is
before this Court challenging both the judgment and orders
impugned.
7. Learned counsel for the respondents-defendants
submits that the petitioner's belated claim that he became
aware of the so-called "fraudulent act" of the respondents
only in January 2022 is not only devoid of merit but also an
afterthought, made nearly 17 years after the execution of
the sale deed. This in itself indicates mala fide intent and
abuse of the process of law. The original suit instituted by
the petitioner before the learned Civil Judge (J.D.),
Rishikesh under Section 26 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963,
along with an application for temporary injunction
(Application No. 6C2 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of
C.P.C.), has been rightly dealt with by the learned Trial
Court. Upon due appreciation of the pleadings and
materials on record, the learned Trial Court rejected the
injunction application by a reasoned order dated
01.04.2024.
8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
perusal of the material available on record, this Court is of
the view that the impugned order dated 01.04.2024 and
dated 18.09.2025 are interfered with and accordingly
modified to the extent that the petitioner-plaintiff shall also
use the tube-well situated in the property in-question
during pendency of the Original Suit No.99 of 2022, Mahant
Balbeer Singh Vs. Shekhar Gupta and others.
9. Accordingly writ petition stands disposed-off.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
15.10.2025
SK
