2025:UHC:7903 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS AO/504/2024 Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. Shubhang Dobhal and Mr. Bhupendra Bora, learned counsel for the appellant. 2. Mr. D.C.S. Rawat, learned counsel for respondents. 3. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant seeking to set aside the impugned order dated 12.07.2024 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Kotdwar, Pauri Garhwal in Civil Suit No. 27 of 2024, wherein the court dismissed the appellant’s application filed under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) for interim injunction. 4. Brief facts of the case, as per record, are that respondent No.1 is the recorded owner of Plot No.409 measuring 48.12 sq. meters, located within the jurisdiction of the Municipal Corporation, Kotdwar. Respondent No.3 approached the appellant to develop the property owned by his mother-in-law (Respondent No.1), and the appellant agreed; that, a notarized agreement dated 27.05.2022 was executed between the appellant and respondent no.1, following which possession was handed over to the appellant for development; that, the appellant constructed a commercial structure on the property. It is further stated that respondent no.1 executed a registered power of attorney in favor of Respondent No.3, which is at the heart of the dispute; that, the appellant filed a civil suit seeking permanent injunction against the respondents, while the respondents filed a counter suit and objected to the interim relief. The trial court dismissed the appellant’s interim injunction application by order dated 12.07.2024. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the trial court failed to consider crucial evidence and documents, including the 2025:UHC:7903 notarized agreement and possession papers, which clearly indicate that the appellant had entered into a valid agreement and was in possession of the property. It was argued that the order dismissing the interim injunction application was passed in disregard of established facts and principles of law. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, supported the impugned order, contending that the trial court duly considered the material on record before arriving at its conclusion. It was further brought to the notice of this Court by learned counsel for the parties that a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 31.12.2024 had earlier directed the parties to maintain status quo in respect of the property pending adjudication of the dispute. 7. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant at length, he made an innocuous prayer before this Court seeking that the trial court be directed to decide the civil suit filed by the appellant expeditiously and, in the meantime, both parties be directed to maintain status quo with regard to the nature and possession of the property in dispute. 8. Learned counsel for the respondents does not oppose the said prayer made by the learned counsel for the appellant. 9. In view of the foregoing and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the trial court is directed to decide Civil Suit No. 27 of 2024 ‘Chandraprakash Vs. Vidyavati Kotnala & Others’, pending before the Senior Civil Judge, Kotdwar, Pauri Garhwal, as expeditiously as possible, in accordance with law, after affording both parties an opportunity to be heard. Till such decision is taken, the parties are directed to maintain status quo concerning the nature and possession of the property in question. 10. Accordingly, the appeal stands disposed of. 11. Any pending applications also stand disposed of. (Alok Mahra, J.) 04.09.2025 Mamta 2025:UHC:7903