HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Appeal from Order No. 29 of 2026 Krishna Kumar Jaiswal ….....Appellant Versus State of Uttarakhand and others .….Respondents Present:- Mr. Sagar Kothari, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. S.S. Chauhan, Advocate for the respondent no. 4. Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) The challenge in this appeal is made to the order dated 19.01.2026 passed by the court of Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Dehradun in Original Suit No. 448 of 2024, Krishna Kumar Jaiswal v. State of Uttarakhand and others, by which, while allowing the application filed under Order 39 Rule 4 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“the Code”), the order of temporary injunction passed on 16.05.2025 has been set aside. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant had filed a suit for permanent injunction, in which after hearing both the parties, temporary injunction was granted by the court on 16.05.2025; it is thereafter that the respondents did file an application under Order 39 Rule 4 of the Code for setting aside the temporary injunction order dated 16.05.2025, which has been allowed. Learned counsel also submits that the temporary injunction order may only be varied under Order 39 Rule 4 of the Code, if there are change of circumstances, which in the instant case do not exist. He submits that every fact, which has been considered as changed circumstance 2 was before the court when the order dated 16.05.2025 was passed. It is argued that by the impugned order, the court has, in fact, exercised the power of appellate court to set aside its own order of temporary injunction order dated 16.05.2025, which is not permissible. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 4 submits that nothing survives in this appeal now. He submits that a sewerage pipeline was to be laid on a 30 ft. wide public road, which was constructed by the respondent Cantonment Board; the pipeline has already been laid and now they are not going to make any construction over the road. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the suit was with regard to Khasra No. 843 Kha, which is the suit property owned by the appellant. He submits that the appellant has no objection if the construction is raised on the existing road. He also submits that the appellant is only aggrieved by any interference that is made on his property, which is Khasra No. 843 Kha. 6. Since, a statement is given by the learned counsel for the respondent no. 4 that on a public road constructed by the Cantonment Board, sewerage pipeline was to be laid when the suit was filed but now they are not raising any construction, nothing survives in this appeal. 7. The appeal is dismissed accordingly. (Ravindra Maithani, J.) 12.02.2026 Avneet/