2025:UHC:5494 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1092 of 2022 Kamal Prasad --Petitioner Versus Kumud D Vaidya and others -Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Advocates : Mr. B.M. Pingal, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Sudhir Kumar Nailwal, Standing Counsel for the State Mr. Siddhartha Singh, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Mr. Ashish Joshi, Advocate for respondent No. 4 Mr. Bhuwan Bhatt, Advocate for respondent No. 5 Mr. Harsh Rautela, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Shobhit Saharia, Advocate for respondent No. 9 Mr. Siddhartha Sah and Mr. Sagar Kothari, Advocates for respondent Nos. 13, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22 to 26. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT 1. By this petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution, petitioner has sought the following reliefs:- “a) Issue a writ, order, or direction in the nature certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 11.11.2020 passed by learned Incharge District Judge, Dehradun in Testamentary Case No. 58 of 2020 (now registered Original Suit No. 3 of 2021) Kamal Prasad vs. Kumud D. Vaidya & Others, to the extent of refusing to grant ex-parte interim injunction in favor of plaintiff/petitioner (Annexure No. 5 to this writ petition). b) Issue a, writ, order or direction directing respondents not to create third party interest over the property being subject matter of OS No. 3 of 2021 - Kamal Prasad vs. Kumud D. Vaidya & Others, pending before learned Court of learned 6th Additional District Judge, Dehradun, and to maintain status quo qua nature and possession of the property being subject matter of the said suit till disposal of interim injunction application paper no. 7C2 of plaintiff/petitioner by learned Trial Court. c) Issue a writ, order or direction directing Court of learned 6th Additional District Judge, Dehradun, to make an endeavour to decide in accordance with law the interim injunction application paper no. 7C2 of plaintiff/petitioner in OS No. 3 of 2021 Kamal Prasad vs. Kumud D. Vaidya & Others, at the earliest, within stipulated time which this Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper, without granting unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties.” 1 2025:UHC:5494 2. It transpires that petitioner filed a petition for letters of administration under Section 278 of Indian Succession Act, 1925. In the said petition, petitioner moved an application for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC. Learned District Judge, Dehradun issued notice on the application for temporary injunction vide order dated 11.11.2020. The said order passed by District Judge is challenged in this writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner’s mother owned a number of movable and immovable properties in different States, including State of Uttarakhand and his mother had executed a Will in favour of petitioner on 19.11.1995; however, respondent No. 1 is interfering in the peaceful enjoyment of the property, so bequeathed in his favour, therefore petitioner was entitled to ex parte ad interim injunction and learned District Judge was not justified in merely issuing notice and not granting ad-interim injunction in his favour. 4. Per contra, Mr. Siddhartha Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 submits that the property situate within State of Uttarakhand was owned by Rajkumari Padmakumari, unmarried sister of petitioner’s mother and Rajkumari Padmakumari executed a Will in favour of respondent No. 1 on 25.08.2015, therefore respondent No. 1 is owner of the property situate in State of Uttarakhand, by virtue of that will. 5. He further submits that Bombay High Court has granted letters of administration in favour of respondent No. 1 on 29.08.2016 and petitioner challenged the order 2 2025:UHC:5494 passed by Bombay High Court before Hon’ble Supreme Court, however, he remained unsuccessful. 6. Since temporary injunction application filed by petitioner in the year 2020 is yet to be decided, therefore this Court thinks that no useful purpose would be served by keeping this writ petition pending. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with a request to learned District Judge, Dehradun to consider and decide the temporary injunction application, filed by petitioner in his probate petition. All the parties shall appear before the District Judge on 09.07.2025 and respondents to this petition may file their objection to petitioner’s temporary injunction application, if already not filed, on or before 08.07.2025. 7. Learned District Judge, Dehradun is requested to consider and decide the temporary injunction application, on or before 30.07.2025. 8. Till disposal of temporary injunction application or 30.07.2025, whichever is earlier, parties shall not create any third party interest qua the property in question. Unnecessary adjournment shall not be granted to any of the parties. _______________________________ MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, J. Dt: 27.06.2025 Mahinder 3 MAHINDER SINGH Digitally signed by MAHINDER SINGH DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=da6212e6e78d94ed3134842bc6a8d6ca168979ca7b 8c2f031a92d1a18b08923c, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=AB77B7C5B240908B392BE84F5CDD4C2AF35D C4626D305B1BC9EA4BABA43D2B8F, cn=MAHINDER SINGH Date: 2025.06.30 20:25:52 +05'30'