HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

Writ Petition Misc. Single No.6 of 2026

09th January, 2026

Shyam Manohar alias Shyamlal ……….Petitioner

Versus

Mahesh Gandhi and others ………..Respondents ----------------------------------------------------------------------

Presence:-

Mr. Sameer Rawat, Advocate for the petitioner.

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

Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.

This writ petition has been filed under Article

227 of the Constitution of India, whereby the petitioner– defendant no.1 seeks issuance of a direction to the learned trial court, i.e., Civil Judge (J.D.), Haridwar, to hear and decide the temporary injunction application as well as the application for appointment of a receiver, Paper No.31A1, under Order XL Rule 1 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, within a stipulated

time to be fixed by this Court.

2. The case of the petitioner–defendant no.1, as unfolded from the present writ petition, is that an original suit for partition was filed by respondent–plaintiff no.1, Mahesh Gandhi, against the petitioner–defendant no.1 before the learned Civil Judge (J.D.), Haridwar. In the said suit, an application for temporary injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil

Procedure was also moved by respondent–plaintiff no.1.

3. The contesting defendant, i.e., petitioner– defendant no.1, has already filed objections to the said temporary injunction application. Thereafter, an application under Order XL Rule 1 read with Section 151

of the Code of Civil Procedure, being Paper No.31A1, was moved by the petitioner–defendant no.1 seeking appointment of a receiver in respect of the suit property. Objections to the said application have also been filed by respondent–plaintiff no.1.

4. Both the applications are still pending consideration and disposal before the learned trial court.

5. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner–defendant no.1 that although he has been pressing the application, Paper No.31A1, for appointment of a receiver, the learned trial court has observed that the application for temporary injunction, being prior in point of time, would be taken up first and that the application for appointment of receiver would be considered only after disposal of the temporary injunction application.

6. It is further contended by learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant no.1 that despite repeated adjournments, the matter remains pending and both the applications continue to be adjourned without disposal. Therefore, the petitioner–defendant no.1 has approached this Court seeking a direction to the learned trial court to decide both the applications expeditiously in a time-

bound manner.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner- defendant no.1and perused the order sheet of Original Suit No.38 of 2023, which reflects that the matter has been adjourned for one reason or the other and that both the applications have remained pending for disposal for a considerable period of time.

8. In view of the above, learned counsel for the petitioner–defendant no.1 has made out a case for issuance of a direction to the learned trial court to decide both the aforesaid applications.

9. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The learned trial court, i.e., Civil Judge (J.D.), Haridwar, is directed to decide the application for temporary injunction moved by respondent–plaintiff no.1 and the application for appointment of receiver, Paper No.31A1, moved by petitioner–defendant no.1, expeditiously, preferably within a period of 30 days from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.

(Pankaj Purohit, J.)

09.01.2026 SK