2025:UHC:360 UHIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI UWrit Petition (M/S) No. 91 of 2025 9PUth UPU January, 2025 Uttarakhand Schedule Caste Commission --Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and others --Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. Harsh Vardhan Dhanik, learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Yogesh Chandra Tiwari, learned Standing Counsel with Mr. Devendra Pant, learned Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- UJUDGMENT 1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution is directed against order dated 21.03.2024, passed by District Judge, Dehradun in Civil Appeal No. 56 of 2024. By said order, parties were directed to maintain status quo, qua the nature and possession of the property till the next date of hearing. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order passed by District Judge is erroneous since the suit has been dismissed by learned trial Court vide judgment dated 11.08.2024, therefore plaintiff is not entitled to any interim relief by the appellate Court. He submits that plaintiff was not found in possession over the suit property, therefore the interim order passed in his favour by the appellate Court is uncalled for and unsustainable. 3. Learned District Judge, in para 7 of the impugned order has referred to the admission made by petitioner 1 2025:UHC:360 in their written statement filed before the trial Court that plaintiff was in possession over the property in question. 4. The judgment rendered by learned trial Court is annexed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition. In para 5 of the said judgment, the averments made in the written statement have been referred. Perusal of para 5 reveals that petitioner admitted the possession of the plaintiff over the land allotted to them. 5. In such view of the matter, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the interim order passed by learned District Judge, Dehradun dated 21.03.2024. Even otherwise also, the relief granted by learned District Judge is discretionary and this Court normally does not interfere with the discretionary relief while exercising power under Article 227 of the Constitution. 6. Thus, the Writ Petition fails and is dismissed. _________________________________ MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, J. Dt: 9Pth Mahinder P January, 2025 2