JUDGMENT

Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

The instant appeal is preferred against the order dated 11.02.2026, passed in Misc. Suit No.07 of 2022, Dhan Singh Rawat v. Anand Singh Latwal, by the court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Haldwani (“the misc. case”). By the impugned order, the proceedings under Order 39 Rule A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“the Code”) have been closed.

2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record.

3. The appellant filed the original suit no.2 of 2021 in the court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Haldwani, District Nainital (“the suit”) for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from interfering into the lawful and peaceful possession of the plaintiffs in the suit property. On 25.09.2021, the Court passed status quo order. It appears that on 22.02.2022, the appellant filed an application under Order 39 Rule 2A of the Code bringing it to the notice of the Court that the respondent made disobedience to the status quo order, and on 19.02.2022 and 20.02.2022, he had got the possession of the suit property by placing iron angle on the suit property. It is the basis of the misc. case. The appellant, thereafter, also sought relief of possession against the defendant in the suit.

4. In the meanwhile, the defendant had challenged the status quo order dated 25.09.2022, passed in the suit in Appeal from Order No. 88 of 2022, Anand Singh Latwal v. Dhan Singh Rawat (“the appeal”), which was decided on 16.03.2022. The order is as follows:-

“The Appeal From Order has been filed against the order dated 25.09.2021, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Haldwani, District Nainital in Civil Case No.55 of 2021, “Dhan Singh Rawat vs. Anand Singh Latwal”, whereby the learned trial court has directed both the parties to maintain status quo over the property in dispute.

Mr. Sudhir Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant. During the arguments, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that this appeal may be disposed of at the admission stage with the direction to the learned trial court to call a Commission Report regarding the property in dispute and order of status quo be ordered to be subject to Commission Report.

This is innocuous prayer.

This Appeal is disposed of with the direction to the learned trial court to call the Commission Report of the property in dispute within fifteen days’ from the production of the certified copy of this order. The status quo, as directed by the learned trial court; shall be subject to the Commission Report.

Let a certified copy of this order be supplied to the learned counsel for the appellant by 21.03.2022 on payment of usual charges.”

5. Pursuant to the Court’s order, the Commission submitted its report on 04.04.2022 revealing the possession of the respondent.

6. In this background, an application 36 C was filed by the respondent that since the status quo order was subject to the Commission report, and the Commission report has established the possession of the respondent, the application under Order 39 Rule 2A and Section 151 of the Code do not survive, therefore, they may be rejected. On this application, the appellant did filed objections revealing that, in fact, after grant of status quo order on 19.02.2022 and 20.02.2022 the respondent has occupied the property in dispute, of which an FIR was lodged, and immediately thereafter, on 21.02.2022, the application under Order 39 Rule 2A of the Code has been filed. Therefore, it has been the case of the appellant that disobedience of the Court’s order has been made by the respondent, and the application under Order 39 Rule 2A and Section 151 of the Code still survives.

7. After hearing the parties, by the impugned order, the Court closed the proceedings of the application under Order 39 Rule 2A of the Code, which is impugned herein.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that after the status quo order dated 25.0