Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings SL.

Date or directions and COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS No Registrar’s order with Signatures SA No. 150 of 2025 Hon’ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J.

1. Mrs. Monika Pant, learned counsel for the appellant.

2. The suit for injunction was filed by the appellant/plaintiff against the defendants, wherein, two important vital issues were framed. One, whether the plaintiff is the owner and in possession over the land in question and, second one, whether the suit property is identifiable. Both these two vital issues were decided in favour of the plaintiff and the Trial Court decreed the suit.

3. Being aggrieved with the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court the respondent/defendant preferred an appeal; however, the Appellate Court allowed the appeal on the basis of the observation as recorded in paragraph 24. In paragraph 19 onwards to paragraph 23 the Appellate Court confirmed the finding of the Trial Court by saying that the appellant/plaintiff is the owner as well as in possession over the suit property, despite this, by recording the reasons as reflected from paragraph 24 the appeal was allowed.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the