2025:UHC:7512 1 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition Misc. Single No. 2155 of 2024 25 August, 2025 Hari Singh & others --Petitioners Versus Shiv Singh --Respondent ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. Neeraj Garg, learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants. Mr. Nikhil Singhal, learned counsel for the respondent nos.1/1, ½ & 1/3/plaintiffs. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. By means of the present writ petition, petitioners have sought the following reliefs:- “(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing impugned judgment and order dated 20.07.2024 passed by learned 2nd Additional District Judge, Rudrapur, Udham Singh Nagar, in Misc. Civil Appeal No.37 of 2019, Hari Singh & others vs. Shiv Singh (deceased) through LRs (Annexure no.1 to the writ petition), further allowing the Misc. Civil Appeal filed by the defendants/petitioners for the relief claimed. (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing impugned order dated 29.07.2019 passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Rudrapur, Udham Singh Nagar, in OS No.57 of 2016, Shiv Singh vs. Hari Singh & others (Annexure No.2 to the writ petition).” 2. Brief facts of the case are that an Original Suit No.57 of 2016, Shiv Singh vs. Hari Singh & others was filed by the respondents/plaintiffs in the court of Civil Judge 2025:UHC:7512 2 (J.D.), Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar for permanent injunction. Along with the said suit, the respondents/plaintiffs also filed an application for a temporary injunction (Paper No. 6C) to restrain the petitioners/defendants from interfering with the alleged possession of the disputed land. The said application of the respondents/plaintiffs was allowed ex parte by the learned trial court vide judgment and order dated 29.07.2019, after hearing both parties, thereby restraining the petitioners/defendants from interfering with the property in question. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners/defendants preferred an appeal which was registered at Misc. Civil Appeal No.37 of 2019, Hari Singh & others vs. Shiv Singh. The said misc. civil appeal was also dismissed by learned appellate court i.e. Additional District Judge, Rudrapur, Udham Singh Nagar. It is feeling aggrieved by both the orders, petitioners/defendants are before this Court. 3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants that, although it is admitted that the property in dispute was purchased by the respondents/plaintiffs through a registered sale deed dated 03.03.2015, the record reflects that the respondents/plaintiffs are not in possession of the said land. He placed reliance on the report of the Lekhpal, which indicates that the respondents/plaintiffs were not in possession of the property. He further contends that the mutation made in favour of the respondents/plaintiffs was subsequently cancelled. Since the respondents/plaintiffs were not in possession of the property, no injunction could have been granted to them. He relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bruce vs. Silva Raj & Others, reported in 1987 (Supp) SCC 161, and specifically referred to paragraph 5 of the said judgment to buttress his 2025:UHC:7512 3 point. 4. The reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants on the aforesaid case law is wholly misconceived, as the judgment cited pertains to a final injunction granted by the court, whereas the present matter concerns a temporary injunction. If temporary injunction is not granted in favour of respondents/plaintiffs, the suit would render infructuous. 5. Since the respondents/plaintiffs have filed the suit with the averment that they purchased the land in question and are in possession of the suit property and their names are recorded in khasara, this Court does not find any illegality in the grant of the temporary injunction order in their favour. Accordingly, the writ petition lacks merit and is hereby dismissed. 6. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of accordingly. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 25.08.2025 AK .