2025:UHC:9503 1 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition Misc. Single No. 2993 of 2025 29 October, 2025 Pramod Singh Negi --Petitioner Versus Prithvipal Singh Chauhan & another --Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. Vinodanand Barthwal, learned counsel for the petitioner (appeared through V.C.). ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. By means of present writ petition, petitioner has sought the following reliefs:- “(i) Issue an appropriate order or direction for setting aside the impugned judgment/order in Civil Revision No.06 of 2023 dated 04.10.2025 (annexure-1) passed by District Judge, Pauri, District Pauri Garhwal. (ii) Issue an appropriate order or direction for setting aside the impugned judgment/order in Civil Suit No.07 of 2022 dated 18.04.2023 (annexure-2) passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Pauri, District Pauri Garhwal. (iii) Issue an appropriate order or direction to decide the issue of maintainability of the suit on the final hearing by setting aside the impugned judgment/order in Civil Revision No.06 of 2023 dated 04.10.2025 (annexure-1) passed by District Judge, Pauri, District Pauri Garhwal and by setting aside the impugned judgment/order in Civil Suit No.07 of 2022 dated 18.04.2023 (annexure-2) passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division) Pauri, District Pauri Garhwal”. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner purchased a piece of land situated in Khata No. 206, Khet No. 517, comprising an area of 0.005 hectare, 2025:UHC:9503 2 located at Mall Road, Pauri, Tehsil Pauri, District Pauri Garhwal, from one Laxman Singh in the year 2019. The said land was mutated in favour of the petitioner by the order of the Tehsildar, Pauri, in Mutation Case No. 30/2019-20 dated 24.12.2019. Subsequently, the respondent challenged the said mutation order before the Assistant Collector in appeal, which was dismissed. Thereafter, the respondent preferred a revision before the Commissioner, which was also dismissed. Aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner, the respondent approached this High Court by filing a writ petition, which was dismissed for non-prosecution. Thereafter, the respondent instituted a civil suit for permanent injunction before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Pauri Garhwal, wherein one issue was framed. The learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Pauri Garhwal, decided the said issue in favour of the respondent vide order dated 18.04.2023. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred a revision before the District Judge, Pauri Garhwal, which was dismissed vide order dated 04.10.2025. Hence, the petitioner has approached this Court. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that a suit for injunction is not maintainable before a civil court without seeking the specific relief of possession, which indicates that the respondent has admitted the petitioner to be a co-sharer in Khet No. 517 of Revenue Village Pauri, Tehsil Pauri, District Pauri Garhwal. He further submits that the respondent is not in possession of the said property, and therefore, the filing of the injunction suit itself is untenable. 2025:UHC:9503 3 4. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court finds no illegality, perversity, or jurisdictional error in the impugned orders passed by the courts below. The question as to whether the suit for injunction is maintainable or not, and the question of possession, are essentially mixed questions of fact and law, which can appropriately be adjudicated during the trial of the suit. The learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) and the revisional court have both examined the matter and recorded concurrent findings, which do not call for interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 5. It is well settled that the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 is to be exercised sparingly and only in cases where the subordinate court has acted without jurisdiction or in flagrant disregard of the principles of law. No such circumstance has been demonstrated by the petitioner in the present case. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is found to be devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed at the threshold itself. 7. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of accordingly. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 29.10.2025 AK