HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

Writ Petition Misc. Single No. 2493 of 2025

01 September, 2025

Surendra Arora & another

--Petitioners

Versus

Anita Arora & another

--Respondents

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Presence:-

Mr. Anil Kumar Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioners. Mr. Ajeet Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the caveators.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.

By means of the present writ petition preferred

under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioners have put to challenge the judgment and order dated 25.07.2025 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar in Misc. Civil Appeal No.12 of 2024, Smt. Anita Arora vs. Surendra Arora & another, whereby the learned appellate court has allowed the misc. civil appeal and set-aside the judgment and order dated 08.08.2024 passed by learned trial court on application no.6C moved by the respondents-plaintiffs for

temporary injunction till the disposal of the suit.

2. The brief facts are that Original Suit No. 18 of 2023 has been instituted by the respondents/plaintiffs against the petitioners/defendants in the Court of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar, seeking a permanent injunction to restrain the petitioners/defendants, their servants, agents, etc., from interfering with the 10-feet-wide pathway situated on the northern side of the respondents'/plaintiffs' house, for all times to come. The way in dispute has been shown by the

respondents/plaintiffs in the site plan attached with the dispute.

3. Along with the said Original Suit No. 18 of 2023, an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC was also filed for a temporary injunction until the disposal of the suit. The said application (Paper No. 6C) was rejected by the learned trial court vide order dated 08.08.2024, on the ground that no pathway is shown in the revenue records at the place where the furniture articles are alleged to have been kept, which is stated to be the property of the petitioners/defendants. Furthermore, no such pathway was found or shown by the Advocate Commissioner in his report.

4. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the defendants/plaintiffs went in appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar. The said appeal has been allowed by detailed judgment and order dated 25.07.2025 and the application moved by the respondents/plaintiffs for temporary injunction i.e. 6C was stand allowed.

5. I have perused the judgment and order passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Udham Singh Nagar, which is impugned in the appeal. The appellate court, while allowing the appeal, set aside the order dated 08.08.2024 passed by the trial court. It held that the issue regarding the existence of the disputed pathway is a matter to be determined during the course of the trial, based on the evidence adduced by the parties. Therefore, the order of the learned trial court rejecting the application (Paper No.

6C) was rightly set-aside.

6. This Court does not find any illegality in the judgment and the findings recorded by the learned Additional District Judge, Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar. Therefore, no interference is warranted. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed in-limine.

7. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of accordingly.

(Pankaj Purohit, J.)

01.09.2025 AK