Uttarakhand High Court
WPMS/2748/2025 on 22 September, 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.2748 of 2025
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
Mr. Pankaj Tangwan, Advocate for the petitioner.
2. This writ petition has been filed under Article 227 of
the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:-
"I- Issue a writ of mandamus commanding and
directing to District Judge, District Court,
Rudraprayag to decide Civil Appeal No.1/2025,
without giving unnecessary adjournment, pending in
court of District Judge, District Court, Rudraprayag."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner has filed an original suit for mandatory injunction
and recovery of possession, seeking demolition of the
construction raised by the respondent on his private
property, i.e., bhumidhari land.
4. The suit was contested and ultimately decreed by
judgment and decree dated 07.02.2025 by the learned Civil
Judge (S.D.), Rudraprayag, granting mandatory injunction
and recovery of possession. Aggrieved by the said judgment
and decree, the respondents filed Regular Civil Appeal No. 1
of 2025, L.P. Bhatt and another Vs. Jay Prakash, before the
District Judge, Rudraprayag, on 21.04.2025, wherein the
parties were directed to maintain status quo till further
orders.
5. It is grievance of the petitioner-plaintiff that despite
several adjournments, the appeal has not been heard by the
appellate court.
6. Various interim orders passed in the appeal have been
annexed to substantiate this assertion.
7. From perusal of the order sheet annexed by the
petitioner-plaintiff, it is explicitly clear that the appeal is
being adjourned repeatedly on one pretext or another.
8. The last adjournment dated 15.09.2025 was granted
on the ground of illness of the respondent's counsel,
Advocate Vinod Khanduri, and the matter was thereafter
listed for 06.10.2025, with a last opportunity given for
arguing the matter.
9. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner-
plaintiff that in nearly every order, the appellate court has
granted the last opportunity to the respondent to argue the
matter, but the appeal is being unnecessarily adjourned
time and again.
10. In view of the above, and considering that the
petitioner-plaintiff has a right to a speedy hearing, which is
a fundamental right under the Constitution of India, this
Court is of the view that a direction can be issued to the
appellate court (District Judge, Rudraprayag) to expedite the
hearing of the appeal.
11. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed, and a
direction is issued to the learned District Judge,
Rudraprayag, to hear and decide the appeal expeditiously,
but not later than two months from the date of production
of a certified copy of this order.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
22.09.2025
SK
