2025:UHC:9569 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS A.O. No.368 of 2025 Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. Vikas Bahuguna, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Neeraj Garg, Advocate for respondent no.3. 2. This Appeal from Order has been preferred by the appellant assailing the order dated 08.09.2025 passed by the learned IIIrd Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dehradun, in Original Suit No. 49 of 2023, whereby the learned Court below has allowed Application No. 98C2 filed by respondent no.3/defendant no. 3 under Section 151 read with Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of C.P.C. and restrained the plaintiff/appellant from interfering in the peaceful possession of respondent no. 3 over the property in question. 3. The facts giving rise to the present appeal, briefly stated, are that the appellant instituted Original Suit No. 49 of 2023, seeking cancellation of Gift Deed dated 08.11.2021 executed by him in favour of respondent no. 1, who happens to be his real son. It is the case of the appellant that the said Gift Deed was executed out of love and affection; however, the same was obtained through misrepresentation and undue influence. 4. It is further averred that, after execution of the said Gift Deed, the name of respondent no. 1 was mutated in the revenue records. Thereafter, respondent no. 1 sold the property to respondent no. 2, who subsequently executed a registered sale deed in favour of respondent no. 3. 5. During pendency of the suit, respondent no. 3 (defendant no. 3) filed Application No. 98C2 under Section 151 read with Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 C.P.C., seeking injunction against the appellant/plaintiff, praying that he be restrained from interfering in his peaceful possession over the property. The learned trial Court, after hearing the parties, allowed the said application vide order dated 08.09.2025 and restrained the appellant from interfering with the possession of respondent no.3. Aggrieved thereby, the present Appeal from Order has been preferred. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant contends 2025:UHC:9569 that the learned Court below committed an error of law and jurisdiction in granting injunction in favour of respondent no. 3, despite the fact that the validity of the Gift Deed, which forms the root of the subsequent transactions, is sub judice before the trial Court. It is submitted that once the title of respondent no. 3 itself is dependent upon the validity of the Gift Deed dated 08.11.2021, no injunction could have been granted restraining the appellant, the original owner, from asserting his claim. It is further submitted that the appellant is a super senior citizen aged about 83 years, who executed the Gift Deed under emotional pressure, and the learned Court below erred in not appreciating that the equitable jurisdiction under Order 39 should not have been exercised in favour of a subsequent purchaser whose title is yet to be established. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that respondent no. 3 is a bona fide purchaser for value without notice, who is in settled possession of the property pursuant to a registered sale deed and mutation in the municipal records. It is submitted that the order of injunction merely protects possession and does not determine ownership and, therefore, no interference is warranted. 8. This Court has considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. The primary issue before this Court is not the validity of the Gift Deed, which is yet to be adjudicated in the pending suit, but whether any direction is warranted for expeditious disposal of the said suit in view of the age of the appellant and the nature of the controversy. 9. The suit in question is pending since 2023. The pleadings appear to have been completed, and the issue pertains to cancellation of a Gift Deed and subsequent transactions arising therefrom. In such circumstances, expeditious disposal of the suit would subserve the ends of justice. 10. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vineeta Sharma Vs. Rakesh Sharma & others, reported in (2020) 9 SCC 1, has underscored the need for expeditious disposal of cases involving aged litigants. The Court observed that when senior citizens are parties to a dispute particularly concerning ancestral or self-acquired property, the trial Courts must ensure early adjudication to prevent undue hardship caused by delay. Recognizing the advanced age of such appellants, 2025:UHC:9569 the Court directed that such matters be given priority on the board, as justice delayed would amount to justice denied for elderly persons. 11. In view of the above discussion, and considering that the Original Suit No. 49 of 2023 is still pending before the learned IIIrd Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dehradun, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the learned trial Court to decide the said suit expeditiously, preferably within a period of one year from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment, in accordance with law. 12. It is, however, clarified that the observations made herein shall not prejudice the rights of either party and shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. 13. It is further made clear that if, during pendency of the suit, any third-party interest is created or construction, if any, is raised over the property in question, the same shall abide by the final outcome of the suit. 14. Accordingly, the Appeal from Order stands disposed of with the above directions. There shall be no order as to costs. (Alok Mahra, J.) 30.10.2025 Arpan ARPAN JAISWAL Digitally signed by ARPAN JAISWAL DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=eabb68a3895e41937c266c23964c0485365445e3a20d ddb7393398f9fe45ba3e, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=060FC17022BEAE3DE215D68D9D454C5109CB98 7446351E4DF04AADAA2C2CEA66, cn=ARPAN JAISWAL Date: 2025.10.31 11:25:27 +05'30'