Office Notes,

reports, orders or proceedings

SL.

Date or directions COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS

No.

and Registrar’s

order with Signatures

A.O. No.368 of 2025

Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J.

Mr. Vikas Bahuguna, Advocate for the

appellant.

Mr. Neeraj Garg, Advocate for respondent

no.3.

2. This Appeal from Order has been preferred by the appellant assailing the order dated 08.09.2025 passed by the learned IIIrd Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dehradun, in Original Suit No. 49 of 2023, whereby the learned Court below has allowed Application No. 98C2 filed by respondent no.3/defendant no. 3 under Section 151 read with Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of C.P.C. and restrained the plaintiff/appellant from interfering in the peaceful possession of respondent no. 3 over the property in

question.

3. The facts giving rise to the present appeal, briefly stated, are that the appellant instituted Original Suit No. 49 of 2023, seeking cancellation of Gift Deed dated 08.11.2021 executed by him in favour of respondent no. 1, who happens to be his real son. It is the case of the appellant that the said Gift Deed was executed out of love and affection; however, the same was obtained through

misrepresentation and undue influence.

4. It is further averred that, after execution of the said Gift Deed, the name of respondent no. 1 was mutated in the revenue records. Thereafter, respondent no. 1 sold the property to respondent no. 2, who subsequently executed a registered sale

deed in favour of respondent no. 3.

5. During pendency of the suit, respondent no. 3 (defendant no. 3) filed Application No. 98C2 under Section 151 read with Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 C.P.C., seeking injunction against the appellant/plaintiff, praying that he be restrained from interfering in his peaceful possession over the property. The learned trial Court, after hearing the parties, allowed the said application vide order dated 08.09.2025 and restrained the appellant from interfering with the possession of respondent no.3. Aggrieved thereby,

the present Appeal from Order has been preferred.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant contends

that the learned Court below committed an error of law and jurisdiction in granting injunction in favour of respondent no. 3, despite the fact that the validity of the Gift Deed, which forms the root of the subsequent transactions, is sub judice before the trial Court. It is submitted that once the title of respondent no. 3 itself is dependent upon the validity of the Gift Deed dated 08.11.2021, no injunction could have been granted restraining the appellant, the original owner, from asserting his claim. It is further submitted that the appellant is a super senior citizen aged about 83 years, who executed the Gift Deed under emotional pressure, and the learned Court below erred in not appreciating that the equitable jurisdiction under Order 39 should not have been exercised in favour of a subsequent purchaser whose title is yet to be established.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that respondent no. 3 is a bona fide purchaser for value without notice, who is in settled possession of the property pursuant to a registered sale deed and mutation in the municipal records. It is submitted that the order of injunction merely protects possession and does not determine ownership and, therefore, no interference is warranted.

8. This Court has considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. The primary issue before this Court is not the validity of the Gift Deed, which is yet to be adjudicated in the pending suit, but whether any direction is warranted for expeditious disposal of the said suit in view of the age of the appellant and the nature of the controversy.

9. The suit in question is pending since 2023. The pleadings appear to have been completed, and the issue pertains to cancellation of a Gift Deed and subsequent transactions arising therefrom. In such circumstances, expeditious disposa