Ravindra Singh v. State Of Uttarakhand & Ors.

Judgment

1. The instant writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner - Ravindra Singh for the following relief: “Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent no. 2 to 4 to ensure protection of life and liberty of the petitioner and that of property of the petitioner and that no harm is caused to the person and property of the petitioner at the hands of respondent no. 4”

2. The Division Bench of this Court on 23.05.2025 issued notices to the respondents no. 5 and 6 and simultaneously, directed the 4th respondent to look into the violation of the Court’s order and act, in accordance with law.

Brief facts of the case are that a Civil Suit No. 620 of 2017 instituted by the petitioner for seeking mandatory injunction against the respondent for seeking a relief that legal heirs, servants, labourers, masons and agents of the respondent be restrained from interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff – the petitioner herein, over the suit property. The basis of the suit was that plaintiff – petitioner is the sole owner 1 and is in possession of land bearing Khasra No. 373 min. measuring 921 sq. m., situated at Mauja Dharampur, Teg Bahadur Road, Dehradun. In the suit, preferred by petitioner, on 12.12.2017 ex parte temporary injunction was granted. the relevant extract of which is being reproduced as under: “5. ऐसे म� प्रथम �ष्�ा वाद वादीगण के प� म� होना प्रतीत होता है और यिद प्रितवादी को सूचना दी जाती है और इस म� प्रितवादी �ारा वादग्र� स�ि� पर ह��ेप िकया जाता है, तो इससे वादीगण का वाद दायर करने का उ�े� िवफल हो जाएगा। अतः प्रितवादी को अिग्रम िनयत ितिथ तक वादग्र� स�ि� म� ह��ेप करने से रोका जाना आव�क प्रतीत होता है।

6. तद्नुसार प्रितवादी , उसके िहत प्रितिनिध , उ�रािधकारी, नौकर, कम�चारी, मजदूर, िम�ी आिद को अ��रम अस्थायी िनषेधा�ा �ारा आदेिशत िकया जाता है िक वह अिग्रम ितिथ तक वादपत्र की सूची म� विण�त स�ि� म� बलपूव�क क�ा न करे, अवैध िनमा�ण न करे जमीन खुद� -बुद� न करे तथा वादी के शा��पूण� अ�ासन म� ह��ेप करने से िनिष� रहे।“

4. In the aforesaid suit, defendant filed his written statement on 25.04.2025. It is contended that the defendant, who is private respondent herein, with the assistance of the some antisocial elements, trespassed into the property in question and demolished the structure standing over there and looted the household articles, furniture, LED TV, including laptop, CCTV and DVR etc. This incident was reported to the Director General of Police, Senior Superintendent of Police, Dehradun and complaint also made on CM portal but no action has taken so far.

5. It is contended in the petition that since the defendant trespassed over the suit property despite grant of temporary 2 injunction order by the Civil Court, petitioner moved an application under Order 39 Rule 2A for willful disobedience of the temporary injunction order dated 12.12.2017 followed by another application moved under Section 94 read with Section 151 CPC, which is paper no. 4 C 2 seeking compliance and implementation of the order granting temporary injunction. It is further contended in the petition that instead of passing order on the application moved under Order 39 Rule 2A, the trial court issued notice on 02.05.2025, which read as under: “आज यह अवमानना प्राथ�ना पत्र ३ए1 आदेश 39 िनयम 2ए सपिठत धारा 94 व 151, िसिवल प्रिक्रया संिहता , 1908 प्राथ� के िव�ान अिधव�ा �ारा प्र�ुत । आदेश �आ िक दज� रिज�र हो। िवप�ी के िव�� नोिटस जारी हो। प्राथ� पैरवी अ�र स�ाह करे। पत्रावली वा�े आपि� / िन�ारण िदनांक 23.05.23 को पेश हो।“

6. It is also contended that respondent no. 5 herein filed suit for permanent injunction against the petitioner bearing O.S. No. 297 of 2018, however, the same was withdrawn on 10.05.2025. It is contended that petitioner is running from pillar to post for enforcement of temporary injunction order passed by the trial court and also for protection of his life and liberty as well as his property but no action has been taken by the official concerned to protect his life and liberty as well as to his property.

7. It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that respondent no. 5 in connivance with the police officials trespassed in the suit property despite grant of temporary injunction order, therefore, there is threat perception from 3 respondent no. 5 and the adequate protection may be granted to his life and liberty as well as to the property.

8. After service on the private respondents, counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents by contending that written statement was filed denying all the averments of the plaint and submitted that respondents had purchased the property from one Gautam Mishra, by virtue of sale deed dated 04.09.2015 who purchased this property from one Asha Mishra, vide sale deed dated 24.04.1970 and their names are duly recorded in revenue record. It is further contended that the Civil Court vide order dated 20.12.2019 asked for Amin’s report and pursuant thereto, Amin inspected the site and submitted his report on

27.02.2020 before the trial court wherein it is categorically stated that the land, in question, was measured but due to dense populated area identification of the Khasra number could not be possible.

9. Mr. Yogesh Pacholia, learned counsel for the respondent no. 5 submits that the instant petition has been moved with an ulterior purposes and motive, since the application under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC moved by the petitioner in the Civil Court is still pending for consideration wherein notices have been issued on 02.05.2025. He further submits that under the garb of relief, as sought in this petition, petitioner wants to put pressure upon the police officials so that petitioner may get possession over the property, in question. He submits that the instant petition is not maintainable wherein petitioner is praying for adequate protection to his life and liberty as well as to the property, in question, which in fact, is subject matter of the suit filed by the petitioner. 4 10. Mr. Pacholia, also submits that petitioner for redressal of his grievance has a remedy to file a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for expediting the proceeding of application moved under Order 37 Rule 2A CPC but seeking protection to the property which in fact is subject matter of the suit by way of instant petition is absolutely abuse of process of law.

11. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the relief as sought in the petition, what this Court observed that petitioner is praying for protection of the property which in fact is subject matter of the Civil Suit No. 620 of 2017 wherein temporary injunction was granted and for its implementation, application has already been moved by the petitioner under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC and the same is still pending for consideration, therefore, at this juncture, praying for protection of the property, which is subject matter of the suit, cannot be granted in this petition. It appears that under the garb of this petition, petitioner anyhow wants to take possession over the suit property for which he has already moved an application under Order 39 Rule 2A and therefore, he should pursue the said application.

12. In such view of the matter, I do not find any merit in this petition, since the petitioner in the relief clause is praying for protection to the suit property, which is subject matter of the civil suit, hence, the writ petition is dismissed. Order dated

23.05.2025 passed earlier is also vacated. It is made clear that dismissal of this petition will not prejudice the right of the petitioner to avail proper remedy for seeking protection of his life and liberty, if there is any threat perception but not in respect of the property, which is subject matter of O.S. No. 620 5 of 2017. It is further made clear that any observation as above will not come in the way of Civil Court while deciding the application moved by the petitioner under Order 39A Rule 2 CPC. No order as to costs. (Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) 09.04.2026 SKS 6