Ankit Uppal vs Vinod Kumar
2026 Latest Caselaw 1428 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

Ankit Uppal vs Vinod Kumar on 24 February, 2026

Author: Alok Kumar Verma

Bench: Alok Kumar Verma

                                                    2026:UHC:1205


     IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND

                         AT NAINITAL
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR VERMA

                  24th FEBRUARY, 2026

      WRIT PETITON NO. 2207 of 2022 (M/S)

Ankit Uppal                                       .....Petitioner

                             Versus

Vinod Kumar                                   ....Respondent


Counsel for the Petitioner    :       Mr. Harshit Sanwal,
                                      Advocate.
Counsel for the Respondent :           Mr. Tarun Prakash Singh
                                      Takuli, Advocate.


Hon'ble Alok Kumar Verma,J.

The respondent had filed a SCC Suit (No.2 of

2014) against the petitioner. The SCC suit was decreed on

13.09.2019. A SCC Revision (No.2 of 2019) was filed by the

petitioner. The said revision has been dismissed vide

judgment dated 04.07.2022, passed by learned Judge,

Small Cause Court/ District Judge Uttarkashi. Hence, the

present writ petition.

2. Heard Mr. Harshit Sanwal, learned counsel for

the petitioner and Mr. Tarun Prakash Singh Takuli, learned

counsel for the respondent.

3. Supplementary affidavit dated 13.02.2026, filed

by the petitioner, is taken on record.

2026:UHC:1205

4. Mr. Harshit Sanwal, Advocate, appearing for the

petitioner submitted that the petitioner Ankit Uppal

undertakes to handover the peaceful vacant possession of

the suit property to the respondent within eight months

from today. He further submitted that the petitioner shall

pay the mesne profits, as directed by the trial court.

5. Mr. Tarun Prakash Singh Takuli, Advocate,

submitted on instruction that the respondent does not want

to oppose the said undertaking and submission of the

petitioner.

6. The present writ petition is disposed of on the

request of both the parties granting eight months period

from today to the petitioner to handover the peaceful

vacant possession of the suit property to the respondent.

7. It is made clear that in default of paying the

mesne profits, as directed by the trial court, the petitioner

will be liable to be evicted from the suit property even

before the granted period. Any excess amount paid by the

petitioner shall be adjusted towards the mesne profits

payable.

__________________ ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J.

Date: 24.02.2026 Pant/

2026:UHC:1205