Kam al Prasad v. Kum ud D. Vaidya Ot hers, t o t he ext ent of refusing

Kum ud D Vaidya and ot hers - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Advocat es : Mr. B.M. Pingal, Advocat e for t he pet it ioner Mr. Sudhir Kum ar Nailwal, St anding Counsel for t he St at e Mr. Siddhart ha Singh, Advocat e for respondent Nos. 1 t o 3. Mr. Ashish Joshi, Advocat e for r espondent No. 4 Mr. Bhuwan Bhat t , Advocat e for respondent No. 5 Mr. Harsh Raut ela, Advocat e holding brief of Mr. Shobhit Saharia, Advocat e for respondent No. 9 Mr. Siddhart ha Sah and Mr. Sagar Kot hari, Advocat es for r espondent Nos. 13, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22 t o 26. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - JUD GM EN T

1. By t his pet it ion filed under Art icle 227 of Const it ut ion, pet it ioner has sought t he following reliefs: - “ a) I ssue a writ , order, or direct ion in t he nat ure cert iorari quashing t he im pugned order dat ed 11.11.2020 passed by learned I ncharge Dist rict Judge, Dehradun in Test am ent ar y Case No. 58 of 2020 ( now regist ered Original Suit No. 3 of 2021) Kam al Prasad vs. Kum ud D. Vaidya & Ot hers, t o t he ext ent of refusing t o grant ex- part e int erim inj unct ion in favor of plaint iff/ pet it ioner ( Annexure No. 5 t o t his writ pet it ion) . b) I ssue a, writ , order or direct ion direct ing respondent s not t o creat e t hird part y int erest over t he propert y being subj ect m at t er of OS No. 3 of 2021 - Kam al Prasad vs. Kum ud D. Vaidya & Ot hers, pending before learned Court of learned 6t h Addit ional Dist rict Judge, Dehradun, and t o m aint ain st at us quo qua nat ure and possession of t he propert y being subj ect m at t er of t he said suit t ill disposal inj unct ion applicat ion paper no. 7C2 of plaint iff/ pet it ioner by learned Trial Cour t . int erim c) I ssue a writ , order or direct ion direct ing Court of learned t o m ake an 6t h Addit ional Dist rict Judge, Dehradun, endeavour t o decide in accordance wit h law t he int erim inj unct ion applicat ion paper no. 7C2 of plaint iff/ pet it ioner in OS No. 3 of 2021 Kam al Prasad vs. Kum ud D. Vaidya & Ot hers, at t he earliest , w it hin st ipulat ed t im e which t his Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper, wit hout grant ing unnecessary adj our nm ent t o eit her of t he part ies.” 1 I t t ranspires t hat pet it ioner filed a pet it ion for let t ers

2. of adm inist rat ion under Sect ion 278 of I ndian Succession Act , 1925. I n t he said pet it ion, pet it ioner m oved an applicat ion for t em porary inj unct ion under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC. Learned Dist rict Judge, Dehradun issued not ice on t he applicat ion for t em porary inj unct ion vide order dat ed 11.11.2020. The said order passed by Dist rict Judge is challenged in t his writ pet it ion.

3. Learned counsel t he pet it ioner subm it s t hat pet it ioner’s m ot her owned a num ber of m ovable and im m ovable propert ies in different St at es, including St at e of Ut t arakhand and his m ot her had execut ed a Will in favour of pet it ioner on 19.11.1995; however, respondent No. 1 is int erfering in t he peaceful enj oym ent of t he propert y, so bequeat hed in his favour, t herefore pet it ioner was ent it led t o ex part e ad int erim inj unct ion and learned Dist rict Judge was not j ust ified in m erely issuing not ice and not grant ing ad- int erim inj unct ion in his favour.

4. Per cont ra, Mr. Siddhart ha Singh, learned counsel appearing for t he respondent No. 1 subm it s t hat t he propert y sit uat e wit hin St at e of Ut t arakhand was owned by Raj kum ari Padm akum ari, unm arried sist er of pet it ioner ’s m ot her and Raj kum ari Padm akum ari execut ed a Will favour of respondent No. 1 on

25.08.2015, t herefore respondent No. 1 is owner of t he propert y sit uat e in St at e of Ut t arakhand, by virt ue of t hat will.

5. He furt her subm it s t hat Bom bay High Court has grant ed let t ers of adm inist rat ion in favour of respondent No. 1 on 29.08.2016 and pet it ioner challenged t he order 2 passed by Bom bay High Court before Hon’ble Suprem e Court , however, he rem ained unsuccessful.

6. Since t em porary inj unct ion applicat ion filed by pet it ioner in t he year 2020 is yet t o be decided, t herefore t his Court t hinks t hat no useful purpose would be served by keeping t his writ pet it ion pending. The writ pet it ion is accordingly disposed of wit h a request t o learned Dist rict Judge, Dehradun t o consider and decide t he t em porary inj unct ion applicat ion, filed by pet it ioner in his probat e pet it ion. All t he part ies shall appear before t he Dist rict Judge on 09.07.2025 and respondent s t o t his pet it ion m ay t heir obj ect ion t o pet it ioner ’s t em porary inj unct ion applicat ion, if already not filed, on or before

08.07.2025.

7. Learned Dist rict Judge, Dehradun is request ed t o consider and decide t he t em porary inj unct ion applicat ion, on or before 30.07.2025.

8. Till disposal of t em porary inj unct ion applicat ion or

30.07.2025, whichever is earlier, part ies shall not creat e any t hird part y int erest qua t he propert y in quest ion. Unnecessary adj ournm ent shall not be grant ed t o any of t he part ies. _______________________________ M A N OJ K UM A R TI W A RI , J. Dt : 27.06.2025 Mahinder MAHINDER SINGH DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=da6212e6e78d94ed3134842bc6a8d6ca168979ca7b 8c2f031a92d1a18b08923c, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=AB77B7C5B240908B392BE84F5CDD4C2AF35D C4626D305B1BC9EA4BABA43D2B8F, cn=MAHINDER SINGH 3