Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 224 (UTT)

Pushpa Devi v. Govind Ram

2023-03-15

VIPIN SANGHI

body2023
JUDGMENT : VIPIN SANGHI, J. 1. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to assail the order dated 30.05.2022, passed by the Civil Judge (J.D.) Dehradun in Original Suit No. 134 of 2022, Smt. Pushpa vs. Govind Ram and Others, as well as the order dated 10.03.2023, passed by the 7th Additional District Judge, Dehradun in petitioner’s Misc. Civil Appeal No. 52 of 2022, Smt. Pushpa vs. Govind Ram and Others. The petitioner also seeks a direction to restrain the respondents to undertake any further activity, changing the nature, and causing damage to the construction situated upon the Suit property. 2. The impugned order shows that the ex-parte ad interim injunction granted in favour of the plaintiff-petitioner herein was vacated by the Trial Court upon the respondent- defendant bringing to the notice of the Court that there was suppression of relevant and material fact by the petitioner- plaintiff, i.e. the filing and pendency of an early Suit by the defendant against the petitioner-plaintiff in relation to the said Suit property. In the Suit filed by the respondent- defendant, which has been pending for the lasts nine years, an application to seek interim injunction against the petitioner-plaintiff has been moved, which too was pending. There is a title dispute between the parties in relation to the Suit property. Whereas, the petitioner claims title premised on an unregistered Will of the erstwhile owner, the defendant claims title on the basis of succession. 3. Misc. Civil Appeal against the order dated 30.05.2022 has been dismissed by the 7th Additional District Judge, Dehradun on the same ground, namely suppression of relevant and material fact by the petitioner-plaintiff. 4. A perusal of the impugned orders, undoubtedly, show that there was suppression of relevant and material fact by the petitioner-plaintiff in the petitioner’s Suit. 5. The submission of Mr. Barthwal is that the petitioner had preferred the said Suit in grave urgency, and that appears to be the reason why in the plaint no mention has been made of the filing and pendency of the Suit by the defendant against the petitioner-plaintiff in relation to the same Suit property. 6. Mr. Barthwal submits that no purpose would be achieved by the alleged suppression. 7. 6. Mr. Barthwal submits that no purpose would be achieved by the alleged suppression. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the view that there is no error in either of the impugned orders, and the Courts below have invoked the correct principle of law while dismissing the petitioner’s application to seek interim injunction, as well as while dismissing the Misc. Civil Appeal, preferred by the petitioner. 8. Mr. Barthwal has submitted that before vacating the injunction, the Trial Court has modified the ex-parte injunction in favour of the petitioner-plaintiff on 27.05.2022 to the effect that “defendants as well as plaintiff and their workmen hereby restrained to advance any further activity changing the nature of the Suit property till 30.05.2022.” 9. Mr. Barthwal submits that the said order restrained both the plaintiff and the defendant to carry on any activity to change the nature of the Suit property, thereby also addressing the concerns of the respondent-defendant. He submits that the said order should have been continued to preserve the property and the vacation of the interim orders would lead to multiplicity of proceedings. 10. In the light of the reasoning recorded in the impugned orders, as aforesaid, I see no reason to interfere with the same. However, it is left open to the petitioner to move an application in the Suit filed by the defendant, to seek maintenance of status quo in respect of the Suit property. To permit the petitioner to move the said application, the order dated 27.05.2022, passed by the Trial Court in Original Suit No. 134 of 2022, shall continue to operate for the next two weeks. 11. The Court dealing with the Suit filed by the defendant-respondent shall deal with the application, which the petitioner herein may move, on its own merits and this order shall not come in the way of the Court in passing such orders, as are called for. 12. The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. 13. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.