Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Uttarakhand · body

2025 DAILYLAW 8821 (UTT)

MOHINI SAKLANI v. GOKUL SAKLANI

WPMS/2028/2025 · 2025-07-17

Manoj Kumar Tiwari

Original Suitbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2025:UHC:6218 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPMS/2028/2025 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Mr. Neeraj Garg, Advocate for the petitioner. 2. Petitioner is defendant in Original Suit No. 6 of 2024, filed by respondent for declaration and also for Permanent Prohibitory Injunction. Respondent filed an application seeking interim injunction, which was rejected by the Trial Court. Respondent thereafter filed an appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 (r) CPC and the Appellate Court, vide order dated 29.05.2025 passed an order directing the parties to maintain status quo qua the suit property. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said order was passed by Appellate Court behind the back of the petitioner, as notice was also directed to be issued by the same order. This, according to learned counsel for the petitioner, is improper; therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 4. From perusal of record, it is revealed that next date fixed in the matter is 21.07.2025. 2025:UHC:6218 5. In such view of the matter, this Court thinks that ends of justice would be met if petitioner is permitted, to move an application under Rule 4 of Order 39 CPC before the Appellate Court. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to move an application under Rule 4 of Order 39 CPC, by 19.07.2025. If petitioner moves such application by 19.07.2025, learned Appellate Court is requested to consider petitioner’s application on the next date fixed in the matter. Learned Appellate Court is also requested to make endeavour to decide the Appeal, within six weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order. 7. It goes without saying that learned Appellate Court shall consider petitioner’s application filed under Rule 4 of Order 39 CPC, before passing any order on the prayer made by the appellant, for extension of the interim order. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 17.07.2025 Navin NAVEEN CHANDRA Digitally signed by NAVEEN CHANDRA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3be23325146e76a0642bdf4943fb9046f487df006da 82a131bb4e4403d3c0a15, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=18167EEFB5CA8CFFD421A103819DA875643 AF56D653D095C6ED9A86DAAB21CE5, cn=NAVEEN CHANDRA Date: 2025.07.17 16:58:38 +05'30'