KALAVATI vs CHANDRAVADAN JOSHI

UKHC010176642026

2026:UHC:9775

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

Writ Petition Misc. Single No. 3082 of 2026

28 October, 2026

Kalavati and others
--Petitioners
Versus
Chandravadan Joshi and others
--Respondents
Presence:-
Mr. Ajeet Kumar Yadav, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Deepak Bhatt, Advocate for the respondents.

JUDGMENT

Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

The challenge in this writ petition is made to the
judgment and order dated 18.08.2026 passed in Civil Appeal
No. 06 of 2026, Chandravadan and others v. Smt. Kalawati and
others, by the court of Additional District Judge, Khatima, District
Udham Singh Nagar (“the appeal”). By it, while reversing the order
passed by the trial court, an application filed by the petitioners
under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (“the
Code”) has been dismissed.

2. The petitioners filed a civil suit bearing Civil Suit No.
21 of 2026, Smt. Kalavati and others v. Chandravadan Joshi and
others, in the court of Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Khatima, District
Udham Singh Nagar for permanent injunction (“the suit”). It has
been the case of the petitioners that the father of the petitioner no.
1 and the maternal grandfather of the petitioner nos. 2, 3 & 4,
namely, late Ramlal was the recorded tenure holder of certain land,
as detailed in para 2 of the plaint, within Village Bari Anjaniya,
Pargana Bilheri, Tehsil Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar
(hereinafter referred to as “the disputed land”). During his life time,
late Ramlal was in possession and ownership of the disputed land
1

UKHC010176642026

2026:UHC:9775
and after his death the disputed land was succeeded by the
petitioners. But, subsequently, the respondents, without any
authority or entitlement, started interfering with the disputed land;
hence the suit.

3. In the suit, an application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2
of the Code was also filed seeking temporary injunction, which was
allowed by the trial court on 29.05.2026, on the ground that the
petitioners are recorded tenure holder of the disputed land.

4. The respondent did challenge the order dated
29.05.2026 passed in the suit, in the appeal. The appeal was
allowed and the application filed under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of the
Code filed by the petitioners was dismissed. In its order, the
appellate court on 18.08.2026 observed that the petitioners did
obtain the temporary injunction order by concealing the material
facts.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
petitioners were not aware of any suit filed by late Ramlal, which
was dismissed with regard to Plot Nos. 909 and 927. Therefore, he
would submit that the petitioners may not be blamed for
concealment of facts.

7. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that
there were suits pending under Section 229-B of the Uttar Pradesh
Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (“the Act”), which
was also not disclosed by the petitioners. On this aspect, learned
counsel for the petitioners submits that non-disclosure of the title
2

UKHC010176642026

2026:UHC:9775
suit pending in the revenue court also does not make any
difference. He would submit that the trial court has rightly passed
the temporary injunction order, which has been wrongly disturbed
in the appeal.

8. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that
Ramlal had absconded and after 30 years, the petitioners got
somehow mutated their names in the revenue record, but that
mutation order has been cancelled on 14.08.2026. In fact, he
would submit that in appeal, when the matter was pending before
the appellate court, that proceedings were recorded as sub judice
though they had already been decided on 14.08.2026. He would
submit that the respondents are in possession of the disputed
land; the petitioners have nothing to do with the disputed land;
Ramlal had lost a suit long back qua Plot Nos. 909 and 927 of the
disputed land; this fact was also concealed. Learned counsel
submits that pendency of the title suit under Section 229-B of the
Act was also concealed by the petitioners, therefore, the learned
appellate court has rightly dismissed the application filed by the
petitioners under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of the Code.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioners fairly submits that
today the petitioners are not in possession of the disputed land. He
would submit that the respondents and some other persons have
encroached over the disputed land and they are not allowing the
petitioners to enter into the disputed land.

10. In so far as grant of temporary injunction is concerned,
in fact, there are there parameters, which are to be looked into,
namely, prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable
loss.
3

UKHC010176642026

2026:UHC:9775
11. Admittedly, presently the petitioners are not recorded
tenure holders of the disputed land. It is recorded in the name of
others. It is admitted at the Bar that the petitioners are not in
possession of the disputed land. Therefore, there is no prima facie
case in favour of the petitioner. Moreover, the petitioners did not
disclose that earlier late Ramlal had lost a suit qua Plot Nos. 909
and 927 of the disputed land. On it, it has been argued that this
fact was not in the knowledge of the petitioners. But, the fact
remains that the pendency of the title suits under Section 229-B of
the Act was also not disclosed by the petitioners in the plaint. They
also did not disclose that the mutation order in their favour is
under challenge. Can it be said that the petitioners tried to conceal
the material facts? The Court leaves it at it.

12. The Court has already recorded a finding that there is
no prima facie case in favour of the petitioners. In such a situation,
the balance of convenience also does not lean in favour of the
petitioners and it cannot be said that if the temporary injunction is
not granted in favour of the petitioners, they would suffer
irreparable loss. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the
appellate court has rightly dismissed the application filed by the
petitioners under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of the Code. There is no
reason to make any interference in the impugned order passed by
the appellate court. Accordingly, the writ petition deserves to be
dismissed.

13. The writ petition is dismissed.

(Ravindra Maithani, J.)
28.10.2026
Avneet/
4