UKHC010084062026 2026:UHC:5464 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPMS/1443/2026 Pramendra Mitra Sonkar --Petitioner Versus Dhanraj Sonkar --Respondent Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J 1. Mr. B.D. Pande & Mr. B.S. Kathayat, Advocates for the petitioners. 2. This is plaintiff’s petition, challenging judgment and order dated 30.01.2026 passed by 2nd Additional District Judge, Haldwani, District Nainital in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 9 of 2023. By the said judgment, order passed by trial court on petitioner’s application filed under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC, was set aside, and it was held that defendants have not violated the order of temporary injunction. 3. In his application filed under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC, petitioner alleged that defendants have violated the order of temporary injunction by carrying on agriculture operation over the land in question. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that coordinate Bench of this Court in WPMS No. 2429 of 2018 directed the parties to maintain status quo qua nature and title of the suit property during the pendency of writ petition. The said order was alleged to be violated by petitioner in his UKHC010084062026 2026:UHC:5464 application. It is not in dispute that WPMS No. 2429 of 2018 was disposed of vide order dated 27.10.2020. 5. Learned trial court i.e. learned Civil Judge (J.D.), Haldwani allowed the application filed by petitioner by holding that defendants have in fact violated the order of status quo. 6. Learned Appellate Court, however, reversed the order passed by trial court by holding that since the land in question is an agricultural land, therefore, merely because agricultural operations were being carried out by the defendants, on the said land, will not amount to change in the nature of suit property. 7. The view taken by Appellate Court, i.e. 2nd Additional District Judge, Haldwani cannot be faulted. Merely because the land is being used for agricultural operation does not amount to change the nature of suit property. It is not the case that some structure has been constructed over the suit property. 8. This Court concurs with the view taken by First Appellate Court. Thus, there is no scope for interference. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J) 07.07.2026 Aswal NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL Digitally signed by NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=eacc6757ee7881e933ff8934f07477005aa85f9802a3a0 8b08d1369512ea30f3, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=44EB54CBF00B7698CB6F10C2CE3D26F5C22DA CF4F4610C1FE58A58531726FBB0, cn=NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL Date: 2026.07.07 05:22:50 -07'00' UKHC010084062026 2026:UHC:5464