2025:UHC:7965 1 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition Misc. Single No. 942 of 2025 09 September, 2025 Shailendra Mohan Singhal --Petitioner Versus Ramesh Prakash Singhal --Respondent ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. Vipul Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J. The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner- defendant challenging the impugned judgment and order dated 10.08.2023 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kashipur in Original Suit No. 22 of 2023, Ramendra Prakash Singhal vs. Dr. Shailendra Mohan Singhal, whereby the application filed by the respondent-plaintiff for temporary injunction has been allowed; as well as the judgment and order dated 03.12.2024 passed by the learned 1st Additional District Judge, Kashipur in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 10 of 2023, Shri Shailendra Mohan Singhal vs. Ramendra Prakash Singhal, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner- defendant was dismissed, affirming the order of temporary injunction granted by the learned trial court. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the petitioner- defendant has approached this Court. 2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant that Original Suit No. 22 of 2023 has been filed by the respondent-plaintiff, Ramendra Prakash Singhal, in respect of ancestral property, on the 2025:UHC:7965 2 premise that the petitioner-defendant is raising construction on a portion of land which is a common space leading to the Dehliz Mushtraka (common threshold) from Mushtraka Sadar Darwaza (common main gate), as shown in the site-map annexed with the plaint as ACEF. The basis for filing the said suit by the respondent-plaintiff is a registered settlement deed executed between the predecessors-in-interest of the parties, according to which space ACEF is a common space. 3. Firstly, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant that the temporary injunction has been wrongly granted in favour of the respondent-plaintiff merely on the basis of the site plan (Naksha Nazri) annexed to the plaint, which was not a part of the family settlement deed entered into by the predecessors-in-interest of the parties. Secondly, the respondent-plaintiff, during his examination as a plaintiff witness before the trial court, did not state that he had obtained any measurement of the property in question. Thirdly, the Dehliz Mushtraka (common threshold) is stated to belong to the real brother of the respondent- plaintiff, namely Mahendra Prakash Singhal. The respondent-plaintiff himself admitted during his cross- examination that he had demolished the Dehliz of his brother and that his brother had no objection to such demolition. Lastly, the family settlement deed does not provide for a 20-feet-wide common passage, nor does it mention any common main gate measuring 20 feet. Despite this, the respondent-plaintiff is asserting a right of easement, although no such claim of easement has been specifically pleaded in the plaint. 2025:UHC:7965 3 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant made a statement at the Bar that the petitioner- defendant is willing to provide a 15-feet-wide passage from the common main gate to the property, leading from point A to point C, considering that the parties are cousins. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the plaint along with the plaint map, which forms part of the suit, this Court is of the view that neither the trial court nor the appellate court committed any error in granting the temporary injunction in favour of the respondent-plaintiff. It is an admitted position that a settlement was arrived at between the predecessors-in- interest of the parties, who are close relatives. The map clearly shows the threshold and the common main gate, indicating that there must be some passage leading from the common main gate to the common threshold. Furthermore, the order granting temporary injunction by the learned trial court has been affirmed by the appellate court. If such temporary injunction was not granted in favour of the respondent-plaintiff, the very purpose of filing the suit would be defeated. 6. This Court does not find any illegality and impropriety in the judgments and orders impugned in the writ petition. Accordingly, the same is dismissed in limine. 7. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 09.09.2025 AK 2025:UHC:7965 4