2025:UHC:5181 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPMS/1604/2025 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. 1. Mr. Ahbijay Negi, Advocate holding brief of Ms. Medhavi Divya, learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. Mr. S.K. Nainwal, learned Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. 3. Mr. Piyush Garg, learned counsel for the caveator/respondent no. 7. 4. On 05.04.2025, petitioner filed a suit for permanent injunction before learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Dehradun, which was registered as Original Suit No. 117 of 2025. He also filed an application seeking temporary injunction along with the suit. 5. Learned trial court vide order dated 05.04.2025 passed ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favour of petitioner, restraining the defendants from creating third party interest over the suit property and also from changing nature of the suit property. However, a condition was put in the said order that plaintiff will make compliance of provision contained in proviso to Rule 3 of Order 39 CPC, failing which the order will stand discharged under Order 39 Rule 4(1) CPC. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that compliance of the direction issued by trial court was made within the time stipulated in the order, which submission, however, has been disputed by learned counsel for the respondent. 2025:UHC:5181 7. The ex-parte ad-interim injunction granted in favour of petitioner was vacated by the trial court, on 05.05.2025 due to non compliance of mandatory provision contained in proviso to Rule 3 of Order 39 C.P.C. Petitioner has challenged the order, whereby ex-parte ad-interim order passed in favour of petitioner was vacated. 8. Since petitioner has remedy of filing appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(r) CPC, therefore, this Court is not inclined to entertain this petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India. The writ petition is, therefore, disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach appropriate forum for challenging the order impugned in this writ petition. 9. Since temporary injunction application filed by petitioner is yet to be considered, therefore, trial court is requested to make endeavour to decide the temporary injunction application on the next date fixed; or on any other date, within three weeks thereafter; provided all the defendants are served within one week from today. Service may be effected by all permissible modes. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 19.06.2025 Aswal NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL Digitally signed by NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=eacc6757ee7881e933ff8934f07477005aa85f9802a3a0 8b08d1369512ea30f3, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=44EB54CBF00B7698CB6F10C2CE3D26F5C22DAC F4F4610C1FE58A58531726FBB0, cn=NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL Date: 2025.06.22 21:24:17 -07'00' 2025:UHC:5181