Uttarakhand High Court
Unknown vs Shoorveer on 17 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.2890 of 2025
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
Mr. Neeraj Garg, Advocate for the petitioners.
2. Mr. Siddhatha Shah and Mr. B.S. Kathayat, Advocates
for the respondent nos.9 and 11.
3. A revenue suit for partition has been filed by the
petitioner in the Court of Assistant Collector, Ist Class,
Doiwala, Dehradun, which was registered as Revenue Suit
No.8 of 2023-24, Kuldeep Singh and others Vs. Shoorveer
Singh and others.
4. In the said suit an injunction application has been
moved by the petitioners-plaintiffs for restraining the
respondents-defendants from creating any third party
interest in respect of the suit property and further not to
change the suit property.
5. The said application of the petitioners-plaintiffs was
rejected by the learned Assistant Collector, Ist Class,
Doiwala, Dehradun vide judgment and order dated
25.07.2024. Feeling aggrieved by the said order the
petitioners-plaintiffs filed a Revenue Revision No.13 of 2024-
25, Dinesh Kumar Solanki and others Vs. Shoorveer Singh
and others, before the Board of Revenue under Section 333
of U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act, 1950. The said revision also met
with the same fate of dismissal.
6. It is contended by counsel for the petitioners-plaintiffs
that the suit was filed by the petitioners-plaintiffs for
partition therefore there is no doubt that they are not the
owner of the suit property.
7. He further submits that until and unless partition of
the property has not been effected, the possession of the co-
sharer shall be deemed to be in each and every inch of the
property, therefore it is contended by him that he is entitled
for some injunction at least during pendency of the revenue
suit which has not been granted to him by the court below.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent
vehemently opposed the said submission made by the
counsel for the petitioners-plaintiffs on the ground that it is
admitted by the petitioners-plaintiffs themselves in
paragraph no.3 of the plaint that there was a family
settlement between the parties; and further the petitioners-
plaintiffs have sold their share over the property in view of
the said settlement and the same is reflected from the
khatoni.
9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
having gone through both the judgments of the courts'
below, this Court is of the opinion that since the suit is for
the partition, therefore, the petitioners-plaintiffs are entitled
to get interim protection from the trial court, inasmuch as,
for the reason that if such a protection is not granted to the
petitioners-plaintiffs the purpose of filing the suit would be
completely frustrated. Contentions of the respondents are
yet to be investigated during trial.
10. On this analogy the impugned order needs to be
scrutinized at the time of hearing of this writ petition.
11. Issue notice to respondent nos.1 to 8, 10, 12 to 20,
returnable within six weeks.
12. Steps to be taken within two weeks.
13. Respondents may file their counter affidavit within
four weeks.
14. List this case on 03.12.2025.
15. In the meantime, respondents-defendants are
restrained from creating any third party interest over the
suit property and changing the nature of the suit property.
16. Interim Relief Application (IA No.1 of 2025) stands
disposed-off accordingly.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
17.10.2025
SK
