Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Uttarakhand · body

2025 DAILYLAW 6100 (UTT)

MUKESH ARORA AND ORS v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

WPCRL/417/2025 · 2025-05-05

Alok Mahra, G Narendar

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2025:UHC:3426-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI G. NARENDAR AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ALOK MAHRA 05TH MAY, 2025 WRIT PETITION (CRL) No. 417 OF 2025 Mukesh Arora and others. …Petitioners Versus State of Uttarakhand and others. …Respondents Counsel for the petitioners. : Sri M.S. Pal, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Apoorv Chauhan, learned counsel. Counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 5. : Sri J.S. Virk, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State of Uttarakhand. JUDGMENT : (per Sri G. Narendar, C.J.) A perusal of the pleadings would reveal that a Civil Suit, registered as OS No. 22/2012, is already pending on the file of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Vikasnagar, Dehradun, wherein the Suit came to be decreed in favour of the petitioner; and that subsequently, on account of persistent violations of the injunction order, another Suit, being Civil Suit No. 18/2025 came to be filed before the learned Civil Judge, (Junior Division), Vikasnagar, Dehradun, and the Court has been pleased to restrain the defendants therein by way of an interim injunction. Despite the interim injunction, there are consistent efforts to breach the order of injunction, and disobey the same. 1 2025:UHC:3426-DB 2. If that be the set of allegations, then the remedy to the petitioner is by way of invocation of the provisions of Order 39 Rule 2A. The instant Writ Petition tantamounts to maintaining a parallel proceeding, despite the availability of an alternative and efficacious remedy. 3. The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner would submit that the complaint is not against the property, but against the person and body of the petitioner. 4. Be that as it may, the petitioner, being vested with an alternative and efficacious remedy, as noted supra, the instant Writ Petition cannot be prosecuted parallelly. In that view, the Writ Petition is disposed of in the above terms, by reserving liberty to the petitioner to initiate proceedings, as permissible under law. As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed. _______________ G. NARENDAR, C.J. _____________ ALOK MAHRA, J. Dt: 05th May, 2025 Rahul 2 RAHUL PRAJAPATI Digitally signed by RAHUL PRAJAPATI DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=aa4fa3bee6691397758b14516ed3e6 6e61bf4c848741983ed8c39e4145cf1dab, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=303B55CC3063D34AC45BF8A 192FCAD15C390A1AAD7B39857D2540AE4C 28A4898, cn=RAHUL PRAJAPATI Date: 2025.05.06 16:56:22 +05'30'