SA/175/2023
2026 Latest Caselaw 1852 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

SA/175/2023 on 12 March, 2026

                    Office Notes,
                   reports, orders
                   or proceedings
SL.
        Date        or directions                 COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
No.
                   and Registrar's
                     order with
                     Signatures
      12.03.2026                     SA No.175 of 2023
                                     Hon'ble Siddhartha Sah, J.

Heard Mr. Abhijay Negi, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. M.C. Kandpal, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Devesh Kandpal, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. By means of this Second Appeal, the appellant has assailed the judgment and order dated 20.02.2023 passed by the Civil Judge, Garur, District Bageshwar in Original Suit No. 2 of 2016, and the judgment and order dated 09.11.2023 passed by the District Judge, Bageshwar in Civil Appeal No. 3 of 2023, whereby the trial court dismissed the Original Suit and the appeal preferred thereagainst has also been dismissed by the First Appellate Court.

3. In brief, the facts of the case are that a suit for injunction was instituted by the plaintiff/appellant before the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Garur, District Bageshwar, primarily pleading a right of way over the disputed path and alleging obstruction caused by the defendant. The relief sought in the suit was for an injunction restraining the defendant from causing any obstruction in the ingress and egress over the said path and from locking the main gate.

4. In the said suit, the trial court framed the following issues:-

i. Whether the plaintiff and his family members have a right of ingress and egress over the property in question in the suit? If so, what is its effect?

ii. Whether the defendant has obstructed the said property by putting up a gate and locking it, thereby causing obstruction on the disputed path? If so, what is its effect?

iii. Relief?

5. Issue No. 1 was decided against the plaintiff by holding that the plaintiff failed to establish his right of way over the disputed path. Issue No. 2 was also decided against the plaintiff by holding that the defendant had not caused any obstruction by putting up a gate and locking it. Consequently, the trial court dismissed the suit.

6. Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 20.02.2023 passed by the trial court, the plaintiff preferred Civil Appeal No. 3 of 2023 before the District Judge, Bageshwar. The said appeal has also been dismissed by the First Appellate Court vide judgment and order dated 09.11.2023. Thus, there are concurrent findings recorded by both the courts below.

7. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case and upon going through the record, the instant Second Appeal is admitted on the following substantial question of law:-

i. Whether the plaintiff and his family members have right of way over the disputed path and the defendant has obstructed the disputed path by locking the gate?

8. List for hearing on 11.06.2026.

(Siddhartha Sah, J.) 12.03.2026 BS