1 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition Misc. Single No.2913 of 2025 14th October, 2025 Sh. Praveen Bhatt --Petitioner Versus Shyam Singh & others --Respondent ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. I.P. Kohli, learned counsel for the petitioner. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner seeks a direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated 17.07.2025, passed by the learned District Judge, Dehradun, in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 30 of 2018, Sh. Shyam Singh vs. Sh. Rakesh Singh & others, annexed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition. 2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent no.1/plaintiff instituted a suit for permanent injunction and cancellation of sale deeds executed by defendant nos.1 and 2 in favour of defendant nos.3, 4, and 5. The suit was registered as O.S. No. 48 of 2017, Sh. Shyam Singh vs. Sh. Rakesh Singh & others. Along with the plaint, the plaintiff also filed an application for ad-interim injunction (Paper No. 6C2). After hearing the parties at length, the learned trial court, vide order dated 15.03.2018, rejected the said application. Aggrieved, the plaintiff preferred an appeal before the learned District Judge, Dehradun, being Misc. Civil Appeal No. 30 of 2018. The learned District Judge, vide the impugned 2 order dated 17.07.2025, allowed the appeal and directed the parties to maintain status quo. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has approached this Court. 3. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that while passing the impugned order, the appellate court failed to consider that there had been an oral settlement among the co-sharers several years ago. Pursuant to the said settlement, the respective co- sharers have been in exclusive possession of their respective shares with absolute rights. It is further submitted that the petitioner, who is defendant no.4 in the suit, is a bonafide purchaser for value, having acquired title through a registered sale deed executed by defendant no.2. 4. It is also contended that the appellate court overlooked the fact that the relief of cancellation of the sale deed executed by defendant no.2—through whom the petitioner derived title—is barred by limitation. Consequently, the relief of cancellation of the sale deed in favour of the petitioner/defendant no.4 is also not legally sustainable. 5. Having considered the submissions and perused the material on record, this Court finds no manifest error or jurisdictional infirmity in the impugned order dated 17.07.2025 warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution. The order merely directs the parties to maintain status quo, which is a discretionary and interim measure passed by the appellate court after due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case. 6. It is well settled that the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is to be exercised sparingly 3 and only in cases of grave miscarriage of justice or patent illegality. No such case is made out in the present matter. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed at the threshold itself. 7. Since the suit was filed in the year 2017, therefore, it is deemed appropriate that the trial court be directed to expedite the hearing of the O.S. No.48 of 2017, Sh. Shyam Singh vs. Sh. Rakesh Singh, as expeditiously as possible, but not later than two years from the date of production of certified copy of this order. 8. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of accordingly. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 14.10.2025 AK