2025:UHC:9987 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition Misc. Single No.3116 of 2025 11th November, 2025 Gurmeet Singh Kalra ………Petitioner Versus Amnre Deep Singh Judge and others ………Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. Suryakant Maithani, Advocate for the petitioner. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. This writ petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, whereby the petitioner has prayed for an order of status quo in respect of the suit property restraining the defendant no.1, his agents, representatives or any person claiming through or under him, from interfering with or creating any third party interest in the said property, till the disposal of the injunction application pending before the court of learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Nainital in Civil Suit No.63 of 2025, Gurmeet Singh Kalra Vs. Amnre Deep Singh Judge and others. 2. The facts in brief are that the petitioner is one of the existing partners of the registered partnership firm M/s V Design the Lake Village having its registered office at Village Chanoti, Naukuchiyataal, Nainital. The firm purchased multiple properties in that area between the years 2003-06 out of the funds of the partnership firm. The petitioner alleges that respondent no.1 is falsely claiming to be related to one of the firm’s erstwhile partners and has been lately asserting rights over the said property and is attempting to create third party 1 2025:UHC:9987 interest in the partnership firm’s property. Aggrieved by his conduct the petitioner filed a suit which was registered as Civil Court No.63 of 2025 before the court of learned Civil Judge (S.D.) Nainital seeking a decree of permanent injunction to restrain the respondent no.1 from creating third party interest in the firm’s property. He also filed an application seeking ad interim injunction praying during the pendency of the suit, respondent no.1 be restrained from interfering with the property of the firm. The Trial Court issued notice against this interim injunction application to the respondent no.1. Hence, this writ petition. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the notice issued by the Trial Court will defeat the very purpose of the interim injunction application as the petitioner remains without any interim protection and continuous to face imminent threat of creation of third party interest in the firm’s property. He further submits that it is a settle proposition of law that when a Court is seized of an urgent injunction plea which discloses a prima facie case an imminent threat or injury, the Court is duty bound to exercise its discretion either ways that is rejecting or granting relief which has not been done in this case. He further submits that in spite of placing before the Trial Court uncontroverted documents proving firm’s ownership, continuing possession, defendant’s recent attempt to create third party interest. The Court has only issued notice which will defeat the ends of justice. 4. After hearing the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner and after perusal of the records, this Court is not inclined to grant interim injunction under this jurisdiction. More so when the Trial 2 2025:UHC:9987 Court has itself issued notices to the respondent to clarify its stance against the prayer of interim protection, the writ petition is not maintainable. The Trial Court is better equipped to pass a reasoned order after hearing the respondent and taking into consideration balance of convenience, prima facie case, irreparable injury. Pendency of this writ petition will amount to abuse of process of law and will unnecessary delay the trial. 5. Accordingly the writ petition stands dismissed. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 11.11.2025 SK 3