2026:UHC:395 1 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition Misc. Single No. 102 of 2026 09 January, 2026 Shubham Kumar Saini & another --Petitioners Versus Pankaj Kumar & another --Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. Bhuwan Bhatt, learned counsel for the petitioners. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J. By means of the present writ petition, petitioners sought the following reliefs:- “(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to set-aside the order dated 10.12.2025 (annexure no.1) passed by Civil Judge (S.D.), Roorkee, District Haridwar in Original Suit No.434 of 2025, Shubham Kumar Saini & another vs. Pankaj Kumar & another.” (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to set-aside the order dated 02.01.2026, whereby despite of the service of notices upon the respondents/defendants, the learned trial court directed to list the matter on 20.01.2026.” 2. The Original Suit No. 434 of 2025, Shubham Kumar Saini & another vs. Pankaj Kumar & another, has been filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs against the respondents/defendants for specific performance of the agreement. In the said suit, an application for temporary injunction has also been filed. Upon institution of the suit, the learned trial court was pleased to issue notice to the respondents/defendants on the temporary injunction 2026:UHC:395 2 application. 3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, service has been effected upon the respondents prior to 02.01.2026; however, on the date fixed, i.e., 02.01.2026, no one appeared on behalf of the respondents/defendants before the trial court. The temporary injunction application is still pending. The learned trial court has directed that the aforesaid original suit be listed on 20.01.2026. 4. If, on the date fixed, i.e., 20.01.2026, no one appears on behalf of the respondents/defendants, the natural consequence would be for the learned trial court to decide the temporary injunction application, and for that purpose, no direction from this Court is required. Accordingly, the writ petition is totally misconceived and has been filed on mere apprehension that the temporary injunction application would not be decided on the date fixed. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed in limine. 5. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of accordingly. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 09.01.2026 AK