Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Uttarakhand · body

2025 DAILYLAW 9025 (UTT)

KHUSHAL SINGH v. PANCHAM SINGH

WPMS/2106/2025 · 2025-07-24

Manoj Kumar Tiwari

Original Suitbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2025:UHC:6540 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPMS/2106/2025 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Kaparuwan, Advocate for petitioners. 2. Petitioners are plaintiffs in Civil Suit, which is numbered as O.S. No. 38 of 2021. Learned Trial Court passed an order of temporary injunction in favour of petitioners. Subsequently, petitioners moved an application under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC with allegation that defendants to the suit have wilfully disobeyed the temporary injunction passed by Trial Court. Learned Trial Court rejected the application filed under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC vide order dated 23.05.2023. 3. Petitioners thereafter filed a Miscellaneous Appeal which was also dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Pauri Garhwal vide judgment dated 19.04.2025. Thus, feeling aggrieved by order passed by Trial Court, as affirmed by Appellate Court, petitioners have approached this Court. 4. I have gone through the order passed by learned Trial Court. Learned Trial Court held that the material available on record is not sufficient to proceed against the respondents 2025:UHC:6540 under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC. Leaned Revisional Court affirmed the order passed by Trial Court. 5. This Court concurs with the view taken by learned Trial Court. Proceedings under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC are quasi-criminal; therefore, before punishing any party for wilful disobedience of order of temporary injunction, the Court has to form an opinion that party concerned deliberately violated the order of temporary injunction. 6. Since material available on record before the Trial Court was not sufficient for forming such opinion, therefore, learned Trial Court did the right thing by not initiating contempt proceedings. Thus, Revisional Court was also justified in not interfering with Trial Court’s order. 7. Thus, there is no scope for interference. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 24.07.2025 Mahinder/ MAHINDER SINGH Digitally signed by MAHINDER SINGH DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=da6212e6e78d94ed3134842bc6a8d6ca168979ca7b8c2f031a92d1a1 8b08923c, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=AB77B7C5B240908B392BE84F5CDD4C2AF35DC4626D305B1BC 9EA4BABA43D2B8F, cn=MAHINDER SINGH Date: 2025.07.24 14:46:13 +05'30'