2025:UHC:1385 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Appeal From Order No. 48 of 2025 27 February, 2025 Govind Ballabh Sanwal And Others ……..Appellants Versus Rajat Rajpal and others ……… Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. Pooran Singh Rawat, Advocate for the appellants. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J. This appeal has been filed by the appellants for challenging the order dated 25.01.2025 passed by Civil Judge (S.D.), Haldwani District Nainital in Original Civil Suit No.40 of 2024, ‘Govind Ballabh Sanwal and Others Vs. Rajat Rajpal and others, whereby the application of the appellants for temporary injunction was rejected. 2. The case setup by the appellants for grant of temporary injunction is that the colony where they are residing known as Indraprastha Colony, is a closed gate colony; that, the respondents have constructed two link roads in the Western Side of the colony and are developing a new colony there, due to which their roads 1 2025:UHC:1385 are being affected; that, respondent nos.1 to 4, 8 & 9 filed written statements and objection against the application seeking temporary injunction in which they have denied the allegations leveled by the appellants; that, they are Bhoomidar and recorded tenure holder of the land in question and no injunction can be granted against true owner. 3. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the impugned order. The learned court below after considering all the relevant facts, passed the detailed and reasoned order while rejecting the application for temporary injunction; that, in its order, the court below (has categorically) have relied the report of the Tehsildar that there is only one approach road, to the land in question, of the respondent coming from the East Side, beside this the appellants have stated in the plaint as well as in the application that they have formed a society to look after the affairs of the society, but the society has not been made party. The learned Lower Court has further held that respondents have executed the sale deed in respect of 20 X 67 feet land for construction of road 4. The court below has further given a finding that respondents are tenure holder of the land in question, therefore, no injunction can be granted against 2 2025:UHC:1385 true owner. Apart from this fact, the colony, which the respondents are developing, its site plan and has been approved by the District Development Authority. Thus, the learned court below has rightly held that, prima facie, balance of convenience is in favour of the respondents. 5. In the considered view of this Court, the order passed by the learned court below is correct and justified in the facts and circumstances of the case and therefore does not call for any interference by this Court. 6. Accordingly, the appeal lacks merit and is dismissed in limine. (Alok Mahra, J.) 27.02.2025 BS 3