2025:UHC:10509 1 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition Misc. Single No. 3275 of 2025 26 November, 2025 Vijay Bhatia & another --Petitioners Versus Chandani Mathur Deceased --Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. Priyanshu Gairola, learned counsel for the petitioners/ plaintiffs. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs challenging the order dated 11.11.2025 in part to the extent whereby learned trial court failed to pass ex-parte temporary injunction in favour of the petitioners/plaintiffs and merely issued notice on the said application to the respondents/defendants. 2. An Original Suit No. 515 of 2025 was filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs in the Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dehradun, for specific performance of an agreement and for a permanent injunction. In the said suit, an application was also moved by the petitioners/plaintiffs for temporary injunction, which was numbered as Paper No. 6C2. At the time of filing the suit on 11.11.2025, the petitioners/plaintiffs pressed for an ex parte temporary injunction, but the learned trial court simply issued notice to the respondents/defendants. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners/plaintiffs are before 2025:UHC:10509 2 this Court. 3. The learned trial court has not yet rejected the application of the petitioners/plaintiffs for temporary injunction and has only issued notice to the respondents/defendants. Therefore, it would not be proper for this Court to enter into the merits of the case or to pass any order before the learned trial court has applied its judicial mind to consider whether the temporary injunction can be granted or not. Accordingly, at this stage, the writ petition is not maintainable. The same is dismissed in-limine. 4. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 26.11.2025 AK