2025:UHC:215 UHIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI UWrit Petition (M/S) No. 23 of 2025 U07UPUth UPU January, 2025 Vijayant Singh --Petitioner Versus Prahalad Naithani and Another --Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. Sandeep Kothari, learned counsel for petitioner ---------------------------------------------------------------------- UJUDGMENT 1. Petitioner has filed an Appeal challenging the judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court in Original Suit No. 5 of 2017. The said appeal is pending before learned District Judge, Tehri Garhwal and is numbered as Civil Appeal No. 14 of 2024. Petitioner moved an application for interim relief in the said appeal. His prayer for interim relief was rejected by learned District Judge, vide order dated 21.12.2024, which is challenged by petitioner in this writ petition. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, finding returned by learned trial Court on the question of co-ownership is erroneous; however, learned District Judge has not considered the said aspect while considering petitioner’s prayer for staying the effect and operation of the judgment and decree passed by trial Court. 3. Law is well settled that grant of interim injunction is discretionary. Learned District Judge has given valid reasons for refusing to grant interim relief in favour of 1 2025:UHC:215 petitioner. It is observed that petitioner was not granted any temporary injunction by the trial Court during pendency of the Suit, therefore grant of interim relief after dismissal of the suit is not warranted. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that defendants in the suit (respondents herein) are emboldened by the judgment rendered by trial Court and now they are claiming proprietary right over the entire property and they may also create third party interest over the suit property, if no interim order is passed. 5. Section 52 of Transfer of Property Act incorporates doctrine of lis pendens, which reads as under:- “52. Transfer of property pending suit relating thereto. – During the pendency in any Court having authority (within the limits of India excluding the State of Jammu and Kashmir) or established beyond such limits by the Central Government of any suit or proceedings which is not collusive and in which any right to immoveable property is directly and specifically in question, the property cannot be transferred or otherwise dealt with by any party to the suit or proceeding so as to affect the rights of any other party thereto under any decree or order which may be made therein, except under the authority of the Court and on such terms as it may impose.” In view of the aforesaid provision, the apprehension expressed by petitioner appears to be unfounded. Third party interest, if any, created by the defendants to the suit will abide by the outcome of the pending appeal. 6. The nature of the suit property, if changed by defendants to the suit can be restored back by trial Court by passing appropriate order or the petitioner, who was plaintiff in the suit can be adequately compensated in terms of money, in case the appeal is decided in his favour. 2 2025:UHC:215 7. Thus, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the discretionary order passed by learned District Judge. Thus, the Writ Petition fails and is dismissed. _________________________________ MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, J. Dt: 7Pth Mahinder P January, 2025 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=da6212e6e78d94ed3134842bc6a8d6ca168979ca7b8c2f031a92d1a18b08923c, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=AB77B7C5B240908B392BE84F5CDD4C2AF35DC4626D305B1BC9EA4BABA43D2B8F, cn=MAHINDER SINGH Date: 2025.01.08 14:10:10 +05'30'