2025:UHC:1654 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS UWPMS/738/2025 UHon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Mr. Siddhartha Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. 2. Petitioner filed a suit for permanent injunction, which is registered as O.S. No. 07 of 2025 in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rishikesh. With his suit, petitioner filed an application for temporary injunction application. 3. Learned trial Court has issued notice on the said application, vide order dated 27.02.2025, fixing 17.03.2025 for orders on the temporary injunction application. 4. Petitioner has challenged the said order on the ground that petitioner was entitled to temporary injunction in the facts of the case and mere issuance of notice, by trial Court, was not proper. 5. The said contention cannot be accepted. Order 39 Rule 3 CPC provides that issuance of notice on temporary injunction is the rule and grant of ex parte temporary injunction is an exception. Thus, the order passed by trial court cannot be faulted. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits 2025:UHC:1654 that petitioner is an old person and if some protection is not given to him, then defendants (respondents herein) may forcibly dispossess him from the suit property. 7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is disposed of by requesting trial Court to consider petitioner’s temporary injunction application on the next date, fixed on 17.03.2025, provided all the defendants are served. 8. Till 17.03.2025, status quo, qua the property in question, shall be maintained by the parties. 9. It goes without saying that trial Court shall consider temporary injunction application, filed by petitioner independently, untrammelled by this order or any observation made by this Court. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 10.03.2025 Mahinder/