2025:UHC:8571 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Second Appeal No. 138 of 2023 22 September, 2025 Virendrapal Singh …..…….Appellant Versus Devendra and others ….….…Respondents Counsel for the Appellant: Mr. Akshay Pradhan Counsel for the respondent: Mr. M.S. Tyagi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Chandra Prakash, learned counsel Sri Rakesh Thapliyal, J. 1. The instant second appeal was admitted on 17.09.2025 with the following substantial question of law:- “Whether the suit filed by the appellant seeking permanent injunction was rightly dismissed by the Trial Court on 25.01.2023 particularly when the area was de-notified much earlier by invoking Section 6(1) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holding Act by notification dated 09.08.2017”? 2. Brief facts, of the case, are that a suit for permanent injunction was filed by the appellant bearing O.S. No. 39 of 2011, against the respondents/ defendants, and as many as five issues were framed and one of the issue, i.e., issue no. 4 was “whether the suit is liable to be abated under Section 5 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act.” Aforesaid Issue no. 4 was dealt with and decided by the learned Civil Judge against the plaintiff by dismissing the suit on 25.01.2023 by holding that the area where the land is located is under the consolidation proceedings by virtue of the Notification issued under Section 4 of the U.P. 1 2025:UHC:8571 Consolidation of Holdings Act. Being aggrieved with the dismissal of suit, civil appeal was filed by the appellant/ plaintiff being Civil Appeal No. 02 of 2023, and specific ground was taken that area where suit property is located, subsequently de-notified from the consolidation proceeding. The civil appeal was subseqeuntly dismissed and now being aggrieved with the judgment of the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court, the instant second appeal has been preferred. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the Trial Court dismissed the suit by judgment and decree dated 25.01.2023 and the Appellate Court also dismissed the civil appeal on 20.07.2023, that the area where the land is located was de-notified subsequently by Notification dated 09.08.2017, which is placed on record by way of miscellaneous application no. 03 of 2024. 4. Now, the question is the original suit for permanent injunction against the defendants was filed in the year 2011 and undisputedly, the trial Court dismissed the suit on 25.01.2023 against which the appeal was preferred and the same was also dismissed on 20.07.2023 but much before final adjudication of the suit, the Government already de- notified the area by Notification dated 09.08.2017, by invoking Section 6(1) of U.P. Consolidation of Holding Act, therefore, it reveals that the first appellate court have gone through with the subsequent Notification dated 09.08.2017, though the first appeal is nothing but continuation of suit. 5. On the previous date, while admitting the instant second appeal on the aforesaid substantial question of law Mr. Tyagi, learned counsel requested that the matter may be posted for today for final adjudication, since, very small issue is involved in this appeal and also submitted that he 2 2025:UHC:8571 will also verified about the notification. 6. Today, Mr. Tyagi, learned counsel fairly submits that by Notification dated 09.08.2017, the area where the suit property is located was subsequently de-notified from the consolidation proceeding, therefore, answer to the substantial question of law on the basis of which the instant second appeal was admitted will go in favour of the appellant. 7. After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration that since the area where the suit property is located was subsequently de- notified by Notification dated 09.08.2017 by invoking Section 6(1) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, therefore, dismissal of the suit by the Trial Court by judgment and decree dated 25.01.2023 and dismissal of the appeal by the Appellate Court by judgment and order dated 20.07.2023, cannot sustain and are liable to be set aside. Thus, answer to the substantial question of law framed while admitting the appeal is decided in favour of the appellant/plaintiff by allowing the instant second appeal. Both the orders under challenge, i.e., judgment and dated 25.01.2023, passed by Senior Civil Judge in O.S. No. 39 of 2011 as well as judgment and order dated 20.07.2023, passed by Addl. District Judge, Laksar District Haridwar in Civil Appeal No. 02 of 2023 are set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Civil Court to decide O.S. No. 39 of 2011, titled as Virendrapal Singh and anr. Vs. Devendra and others, as per law. __________________ RAKESH THAPLIYAL, J. Parul 3 2025:UHC:8571 4