IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT

NAINITAL
SCRUTINY REPORT
1. Filed on…………………………………………
2. Case No……………………………………..
3. CNR Number………………………
4. Court Fees Paid and if sufficient………………..
5. If No, Deficiency of……………………………
6. Limitation Began on………………Expired on….
7. If Barred by Limitation, there is delay of…..days
8. If Delay Condonation Application is filed……
9. If any Caveat has been filed……………………
10. Yes by………………………………………………….
11. Caveator served/not served…………………………….
12. This is……………………………………...
13. Defects, if any:-
(1)………………………………………………………………
(2)………………………………………………………………
(3)………………………………………………………………
(4)………………………………………………………………
(5)………………………………………………………………
14. Remarks, if any……………………………...

A.R.O./R.O./S.O. S.O./A.R. (Stamp Reporting)

S.O./A.R. (Defects Scrutiny) D.R. (Institution)

 IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT
NAINITAL

PRESENTATION FORM

1. Case Category: Writ Petition (M/S)

2. District: Uttarkashi
3. Titled as “Sri Devi Prasad Baluni Vs. Sri Anand Prasad
Baluni and Ors.”
4. Name of Advocate(s) with Bar Council Registration Numbers,
Contact Numbers, e-mail addresses etc: Sri Priyanshu Gairola,
Bar Council Regd. No. UK 456/2017, Bar Ass. No. P – 1309
priyanshu.gairola@gmail.com
5. Contact Numbers, e-mail address of
Petitioner/Appellant/Applicant etc: ……………….
6. Copies served on whom:
7. Mode of service:
8. Date of the service……………………………….
9. Any other information……………………………

Date: / / 2025
(Priyanshu Gairola)
Advocate
Counsel for the Petitioner
 IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT
NAINITAL
INDEX
IN

WRIT PETITION NO. .................... OF 2025 (M/S)

(Under Article 227 of the Constitution of India)
DISTRICT-UTTARKASHI
Sri Devi Prasad Baluni.
..............Petitioner
VERSUS
Sri Anand Prasad Baluni and Ors.
...............Respondents
Sl. Description of Paper Page Date Court Part
No. No. of Fees A/B
Filin Paid
g

1. Scrutiny Report

2. Presentation Form

3. Index

4. Receipt of Court Fees Paid

5. Date and Events

6. Writ Petition

7. Affidavit

8. Annexure No. 1: A copy of the

order dated 26.05.2018 passed
by the learned Civil Judge
(Senior Division), Kotdwar,
District Pauri Garhwal, in O.S.
No. 04 of 2018.
9. Annexure No.2: A copy of the
order dated 15.02.2020 passed
by the Civil Judge (Senior
Division), Kotdwar, District
Pauri Garhwal passed in O.S.
No. 04 of 2018.
10. Annexure No. 3: A copy of the
plaint filed by the petitioner
along with an application for
temporary injunction and the
documents filed therewith
11. Annexure No. 4: A copy of the
order dated 24.01.2023 passed
by learned Trial Court.
12. Annexure No. 5: A copy of the
written statement filed by the
respondents along with an
application under Order 9 Rule
13 R/w 151 of CPC.
13. Annexure No. 6 A copy the
Replication filed by the
 petitioner.
14. Annexure No. 7 A copy of the
order dated 21.02.2024 passed
by learned Trial Court.
15. Annexure No. 8: A copy of the
memo of appeal filed by the
respondents.
16. Annexure No. 9 A copy of the
impugned order dated
25.05.2024 passed by learned
Additional District Judge,
Kotdwar, District Pauri Garhwal
in Misc Civil Appeal No. 2 of
2024.
17. Interim Relief Application

18. Affidavit in support of Interim

Relief Application.
19. Vakalatnama

20.

21.

22.

Sr. No. 1 to …………..have been filled by me.

Date: / / 2024 (Piyush Garg)

Advocate
Counsel for the Petitioner
 IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT
NAINITAL
COURT FEES
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. .................... OF 2025 (M/S)
(Under Article 227 of the Constitution of India)
DISTRICT-UTTARKASHI
Sri Devi Prasad Baluni.
..............Petitioner
VERSUS
Sri Anand Prasad Baluni and Ors.
...............Respondents
 IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT
NAINITAL
DATES AND EVENTS
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. .................... OF 2025 (M/S)
(Under Article 227 of the Constitution of India)
DISTRICT-UTTARKASHI
Sri Devi Prasad Baluni.
..............Petitioner
VERSUS
Sri Anand Prasad Baluni and Ors.
...............Respondents

Date Events
 Hence this Writ Petition

Date: / / 2025
(Priyanshu Gairola)
Advocate
Counsel for the Petitioner

IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT

NAINITAL
WRIT PETITION NO. ............... OF 2024 (M/S)
(Under Article 227 of the Constitution of India)
 DISTRICT-DEHRADUN

Sri Devi Prasad Baluni (Male) aged about 70 years S/o Late Shri
Shiv Dutt, R/o Patti Badagaddi, Tehsil Bhatvadi/Josiyada, District
Uttarkashi, Uttarakhand.
...............Petitioner
VERSUS
1. Sri Anand Prasad Baluni S/o Late Sri Shiv Dutt
2. Smt Urmila Devi W/o Anand Prasad
3. Sri Harish Baluni S/o Sri Anand Prasad
4. Sri Roopesh Baluni S/o Ari Anand Prasad
............Respondents
5. Smt Mateshwari W/o Late Sri Jaganath Prasad
6. Sri Jai Prakash S/o Late Sri Jaganath Prasad
7. Om Prakash S.o Late Sri Jaganath Prasad
8. Prem Prakash S/o Late Sri Jaganath Prasad
9. Vijay Prasad S/o Late Sri Shiv Dutt
10. Bhagwati Prasad S/o Late Sri Shiv Dutt
11. Daya Shankar S/o Late Sri Shiv Dutt
All are residents of Mando, Patti Badagaddi, Tehsil
Bhatvadi/Josiyada, District Uttarkashi, Uttarakhand.
........Proforma Respondent
To,
The Hon’ble The Chief Justice and the other companion
Judges of this Hon’ble court.
 The humble petition of the petitioner most respectfully
showeth as under:-

1. That this is the first writ petition being filed by the petitioner
for the said cause of action and prior to this no other writ
petition has been filed by the petitioner for the present cause of
action.

2. That by means of the present writ petition the petitioner is

seeking issuance of writ, order or direction in the nature of
certiorari for quashing the judgment and order dated
04.04.2025 passed by learned District Judge, District
Uttarkashi in Misc Civil appeal no 17 of 2024, "Anand Prasad
and Ors Vs. Devi Prasad Baluni and Ors", (ANNEXURE
No._ ) by means of which order dated 06.12.2024 passed by
learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Uttarkashi, District
Uttarkashi, in O.S No. 15 of 2024, "Devi Prasad Vs Anand
Prasad And Ors." has been set aside.

3. That before adverting to the facts of the case, it is necessary

and appropriate to set out the pedigree of the parties in the
present writ petition for ease of understanding:-

Shiv Dutt

Jaganath Prasad Vijay Prasad Devi Prasad Bhagwati Prasad Anand Prasad Dayashankar
 Urmila (Wife) Harish Prasad Baluni(Son) Roopesh Baluni (Son)

Smt Mateshwari Jai Prakash Om Prakash Prem Prakash

Devi Prasad :- Plaintiff

Anand Prasad:- Defendant

4. That Late Shivdatt (Fatgher of the plaintiff, Defendant No. 1

Proforma Defendant No. 9,10 and 11), had effected a family
settlement/oral partition in the year 1983 during his lifetime,
whereby he partitioned all his movable and immovable properties
among his six sons. Pursuant to the said partition, all the brothers
have been in exclusive possession of their respective shares as
owners and have continued to enjoy the same accordingly.
5. That under the said partition, agricultural land situated at
Katiliyani Tok, Village Mando, Patti Baragaddi, Tehsil Bhatwadi,
Sub-Tehsil Joshiada, District Uttarkashi, recorded in Khatauni
Khata No. 00025 for the Fasli years 1431 to 1436, specifically
Khet No. 824 admeasuring 0.334 hectares (i.e., 16 Nali and 11
Muthi), was under the ownership and possession of the father of
the petitioner Late Sri Shiv datt. Out of the total area, Late
Shivdatt had partitioned 0.220 hectares (i.e., 10 Nali and 11
Muthi) to Jagarnath Prasad, husband of Respondent No. 05 and
father of Respondents No. 06 to 08, as his share. Out of the
remaining land, 04 Nali was allotted to the petitioner, and 02 Nali
to Respondent No. 11, Dayashankar. As per this and other such
 partition, all brothers have remained in possession of their
respective shares of land and have been cultivating and enjoying
them as absolute owners.
6. That the said partition among the brothers took place in the year
1983, and ever since, each of them has remained in possession
and enjoyment of their respective shares as exclusive owners.
However, the revenue records continued to reflect the names of
all brothers jointly by way of inheritance, Respondents No. 01 to
04 have been unlawfully taking advantage of such entries and are
interfering in the petitioner’s and other brothers' lawful
possession and ownership with an intention of forcibly
encroaching and usurping the property, and are constantly trying
to illegal dis-possess the petitioner and other brothers’.
7. That the intention of Respondent No. 01 has always been to
usurp the property of the brothers. With the malafide motive, in
February 2024, Defendant Nos. 01 to 04, in collusion with each
other, unlawfully interfered in the portion which is in ownership,
and possession of the petitioner in Khatauni Khata No. 00025 of
Village Maundau, Tehsil Bhatwari, Sub-Tehsil Joshiada, for the
agricultural years 1431 to 1436 Fasli. The land in question is
situated in the Katiliyani Tok area, specifically Khet No. 824, ad-
measuring 0.080 hectares (i.e., 80 square meters), under the
ownership and possession of the plaintiff. Out of this, a portion
measuring 12.50 meters in length and 4.50 meters in width
(totaling 56.25 square meters), which is adjacent to the nala and
 road near the hotel of Defendant No. 10 Bhagwati Prasad, was
forcibly occupied by the respondent. The respondents have
started constructing columns and beams with the intent to lay a
roof and take possession.
8. That when the petitioner tried to stop the illegal construction by
Respondent Nos. 01 to 04, they abused and tried to assault him.
On 07.02.2024, the plaintiff submitted an application to the Sub-
Divisional Magistrate, Bhatwari, requesting him to stop the
illegal construction. The SDM conducted an inquiry, and reports
dated 15.02.2024, 16.02.2024, 27.02.2024, 29.02.2024,
06.03.2024, 11.03.2024, and 15.03.2024 were submitted to the
Pargana Magistrate,
9. That on February 2024, the petitioner's son was getting married.
Relatives and well-wishers were visiting throughout February and
March. Being occupied with the wedding arrangements, the
petitioner avoided confrontation/dispute with the defendants and
tried to stay away from disputes and fights along with his family.
Taking advantage of this preoccupation and helplessness,
Defendant Nos. 01 to 04 illegally constructed RCC columns and
beams on the petitioner’s land. On 09.02.2024 — the day of the
wedding's musical night and guest reception — they laid the roof
without constructing any walls.
10. That Respondent No. 01 is constantly trying to usurp the lands
owned and possessed by the petitioner and other brothers, and
misuses any entry in land records under his name to sell and
 tamper with those lands. Respondent No. 01 sold most of his
share during the lifetime of his parents. When forbidden from
selling more land, Respondent Nos. 01 and 02 repeatedly
misbehaved with the parents and interfered in the lands of other
brothers. When restrained, Respondent No. 01 filed false
complaints and even assaulted the father. Due to these events, the
mother of the petitioner and other respondents prepared a sworn
affidavit on 12/11/2011 stating that Respondent No. 01 has no
share in Khet No. 824.
11. That even though Respondent No. 01 is fully aware of the family
partition done by his deceased father, he, along with Respondent
Nos. 02 to 04, is engaging in a conspiracy to manipulate the land
records and wrongfully benefit from entries in his name. The
petitioner and other brothers only come to know about such
manipulations when the documents come to light.
12. That thus the petitioner had filed a suit for perpetual injunction
restraining the respondent no 1 to 4 from Interfering to the
possession of the petitioner and for mandatory injunction
directing the respondent to demolish the structure raised by them
in the land in question. A copy of the plaint of OS No. 15 of 2024
filed by the petitioner along with the copy of documents filed
therewith are collectively annexed herewith and marked as
Annexure no 2 to this writ petition.
13. the While preparing this claim, it was discovered that Defendant
No. 01 has wrongfully declared a portion of the plaintiff's land
 under sole ownership and possession as "Abadi Land" (inhabited
land) under Section 143 of the Zamindari Abolition Act, despite
having no right or authority to do so, making the declaration void.
14. A copy of the order dated 26.05.2018 passed by the learned Civil
Judge (Senior Division), Kotdwar, District Pauri Garhwal, in O.S.
No. 04 of 2018 is annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE
No. 1 to this writ petition.
15.
16. That when Sri Rajeev Goyal realized that the civil suit filed by
him against the petitioner and proforma respondent was bereft
of any merit, he, in an artful manner, filed a withdrawal
application, which was allowed by the learned Civil Judge
(Senior Division), Kotdwar, District Pauri Garhwal, vide its
order dated 15.02.2020. A copy of the order dated 15.02.2020
passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kotdwar, District
Pauri Garhwal, in O.S. No. 04 of 2018 is annexed herewith
and marked as ANNEXURE No. 2 to this writ petition.
17. That Sri Rajeev Goyal, with an ulterior motive to harass and
forcibly evict the plaintiffs/petitioner from their residential
building and land, gave a false and frivolous applications
against the petitioner in Tehsil Yamkeshwar and Laxmanjhula
police station, despite there being no part of the land left in his
name in the said Khata Khatauni, had sold the land of the
petitioner to the respondents vide sale deed 27.10.2021.
18. That it is settled law in the State of Uttarakhand that any
outsider who did not own property/land in Uttarakhand prior
to 12.09.2003 cannot purchase land in Uttarakhand. The land
is being purchased for residential purposes under Section 154
(4) (1) (a) of the Land Act 29/2003, as amended in 2007. The
respondents and their family have not previously purchased
any property in Uttarakhand. It was essential for them to
comply with the Land Act 2003, as amended in 2007.
However, the respondents, in collusion with the Tehsil
Yamkeshwar staff, got their names registered in the Khata
Khatauni for 250 square meters each, in violation of the law
which states that an outsider can only purchase 250 square
meters of land for residential purposes in Uttarakhand, and
cannot purchase more than 200 square meters of property.
19. That the respondents concealing the same, have filed false and
frivolous application before Tehsildar Yamkeshwar and with
the collusion of the staff of Teshil Yamkeshwar, have got the
said land mutated in their names despite not having any
possession over the land in question.
20. That with respect to the land in question, the Revenue
Inspector, HiraKhal, Tehsil Yamkeshwar, District Pauri
Garhwal, had submitted its report on 18-08-2017 that the
plaintiffs have a residential building and cowshed on the land
in question as recorded in the settlement map. The area of the
fields 999, 1000, and 1001 is 0.040 hectares, 0.060 hectares
 respectively, total 0.100 hectares or 5 Nali, on which the
plaintiffs have been in possession and cultivating since 1946.
21. That the respondents though never had any possession over the
land in question, but forcefully tries to takes possession over
the land of the petitioner in collusion with Tehsil Staff. On
17.12.2022, the Respondents threatened the petitioner, that if
they did not remove their building and cowshed from the land
by 27.12.2022, they would bring a bulldozer to demolish the
building and cowshed and destroy the crops in the field. Thus
the petitioner filed a suit for seeking relief of decree of
permanent injunction as against the respondents to not
interfere in the peaceful possession of the petitioner. Along
with an application for temporary injunction was also filed by
the petitioner. A copy of the plaint and application for
temporary injunction along with the documents filed by the
petitioner are collectively filed herewith and marked as
ANNEXURE NO. 3 to this writ petition.
22. That when despite service of the notices when the respondent
didn’t turn up the learned trial court thus on 24.01.2023
granted an ad interim ex-partee injunction in favour of the
petitioner restraining the respondents from interfering into the
peaceful possession of the petitioner over the said property. A
copy of the order dated 24.01.2023 passed by learned Trial
Court is annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE NO. 4
to this writ petition.
23. That immediately after granting ad interim ex-partee
injunction the respondents appeared before the learned trial
court and filed their written statement taking absolutely false
and frivolous pleas and an application under order IX rule 13
R/w 151 of CPC. A copy of the written statement filed by the
respondents along an application under Order IX Rule 13 R/w
151 of CPC filed by the respondents is annexed herewith and
marked as ANNEXURE NO. 5 to this writ petition.
24. That the petitioner thereafter filed his replication to the written
statement filed by the respondent. A copy the Replication filed
by the petitioner is annexed herewith and marked as
ANNEXURE NO. 6 to this writ petition.
25. That the learned Trial Court, after considering the pleadings,
the contents of the injunction application and objections, and
evaluating the prima facie case, balance of convenience, and
irreparable injury, allowed the injunction application filed by
the petitioner vide its order dated 21.02.2024 restraining the
respondents, their agents, and servants from causing any
disruption in the use, consumption, and residence of the
petitioner, as well as in the agricultural use of the property in
question by the petitioner. A copy of the order dated
21.02.2024 passed by learned Trial Court is annexed herewith
and marked as ANNEXURE NO. 7 to this writ petition.
26. That the respondents against the aforesaid order, preferred
appeal under O 43 R 1 (r) of Civil Procedure Code, 1908
 before the court of learned Additional District Judge, Kotdwar,
District Pauri Garhwal which was registered as misc civil
appeal no. 02 of 2024 . A copy of the appeal memo filed by
the respondents is annexed herewith and marked as
ANNEXURE NO. 8 to this writ petition.
27. The learned appellate court erred in law and failed to
appreciate the facts of the case in the right perspective, thereby
allowing the appeal filed by the respondents, vide the
impugned judgment and order dated 25.05.2024, consequently
setting aside the order dated 21.02.2024 passed by the learned
Trial Court. A copy of the impugned order dated 25.05.2024
passed by learned Additional District Judge, Kotdwar, District
Pauri Garhwal is annexed herewith and marked as
ANNEXURE NO. 9 to this writ petition.
28. That the order passed by the learned appellate court is in
complete ignorance of the material available on record.
29. That the learned appellate court, while deciding the appeal
filed by the respondent, travelled beyond the scope of the
appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 (r) CPC.
30. That the order passed by the learned appellate court is, in its
very essence, absolutely unreasoned, non-speaking, and
cryptic.
31. That while setting aside the well-reasoned order passed by the
learned Trial Court, the learned appellate court did not
appraise the pleadings and documents available on record and
 did not record any finding on the triple test required for
deciding the injunction application.
32. That from a bare perusal of the impugned judgment, it is
apparent that the learned appellate court has not independently
analyzed and recorded findings on the triple test for the grant
or refusal of injunction. In the absence thereof, the impugned
judgment does not stand in the eyes of the law and is liable to
be dismissed.
33. That the learned appellate court while setting aside the order
passed by the learned trial court has not gone into the specific
recorded by the learned court below on the point of Prima
Facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss, and in
absence thereof the impugned order is not legally sustainable
and is liable to have been set aside.
34. That the learned Trial Court wrongly applied the principle
propounded by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of
Anantala Sudhakar vs P. Buchi Reddy (dead) by LRs & Ors,
Case Appeal (Civil) 6191 of 2001 as in the present case Firstly
the title of the plaintiff is not under cloud, and secondly a suit
for injunction on the basis of possessory title is very well
maintainable and the respondent cannot claim title to the
property merely on the basis of mutation entry in their favour
which confer no title.
35. That the learned First Appellate Court erred in law and failed
to distinguish between a prima facie case and a prima facie
 title. In the present case the temporary injunction has been
denied by the court on the basis of alleged title to the property
though the settled possession of the plaintiff over the property
has not been disputed.
36. That the learned First Appellate Court erred in law and failed
to appreciate the conduct of the defendant that the possession
of the plaintiff was found to be established in the suit filed by
the predecessor on interest of the defendant himself and once
the learned trial court denied temporary injunction to the
predecessor in interest of the respondents/defendants, the
defendants are estopped from dispossessing the plaintiffs
except in accordance with law.
37. That the learned First Appellate Court erred in law and failed
to appreciate that at the stage of deciding the temporary
injunction application, neither the court could arrive at a
conclusion that whether or not the title of the plaintiff is under
cloud nor can a temporary injunction application be rejected
on such ground.
38. That the learned First Appellate Court erred in law and failed
to distinguish between the parameters to be considered while
deciding a temporary injunction application and the one
required for deciding the suit itself.
39. That the learned First Appellate court below erred in law by
failing to distinguish between establishing a prima facie case
and proving prima facie title. At the stage of deciding a
 temporary injunction application, only the existence of a prima
facie case needs to be demonstrated and failed to appreciate
that a proof of prima facie title requires the presentation of
evidence at a later stage.
40. That the learned First Appellate Court, while deciding the
appeal filed by the respondent, recorded absolutely arbitrary
and perverse findings affecting the merits of the case. The
court erred in law and failed to appreciate that the predecessor
of the petitioner, and thereafter the petitioner, has been in
continuous possession of the property in question since 1946.
On the said property, the petitioner has their residential
building and cowshed and has been cultivating the same.
41. That the learned First Appellate Court below erred in law and
failed to appreciate that the petitioner to the extent of
preponderance of probability had proved his continuous,
undisturbed possessory title over the said property.
42. That it is settled law that rights of the parties should be
preserved during the pendency of the proceedings.
43. That the learned Judge committed manifest error of law and
has committed material irregularity in not granting an
injunction in favour of the petitioner.
44. That the petitioner have no other efficacious and alternative
remedy left except to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of
this Hon’ble Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India on the following amongst the other grounds.
 GROUNDS

A. Because the order passed by the learned appellate court is in

complete ignorance of the material available on record

B. Because the learned appellate court, while deciding the appeal

filed by the respondent, travelled beyond the scope of the
appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 (r) CPC

C. Because the order passed by the learned appellate court is, in

its very essence, absolutely unreasoned, non-speaking, and
cryptic.

D. Because while setting aside the well-reasoned order passed by

the learned Trial Court, the learned appellate court did not
appraise the pleadings and documents available on record and
did not record any finding on the triple test required for
deciding the injunction application.

E. Because from a bare perusal of the impugned judgment, it is

apparent that the learned appellate court has not independently
analyzed and recorded findings on the triple test for the grant
or refusal of injunction. In the absence thereof, the impugned
judgment does not stand in the eyes of the law and is liable to
be dismissed.

F. Because the learned appellate court while setting aside the

order passed by the learned trial court has not gone into the
specific recorded by the learned court below on the point of
 Prima Facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss,
and in absence thereof the impugned order is not legally
sustainable and is liable to have been set aside.

G. Because the learned Trial Court wrongly applied the principle

propounded by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of
Anantala Sudhakar vs P. Buchi Reddy (dead) by LRs & Ors,
Case Appeal (Civil) 6191 of 2001 as in the present case Firstly
the title of the plaintiff is not under cloud, and secondly a suit
for injunction on the basis of possessory title is very well
maintainable and the respondent cannot claim title to the
property merely on the basis of mutation entry in their favour
which confer no title.

H. Because the learned First Appellate Court erred in law and

failed to distinguish between a prima facie case and a prima
facie title. In the present case the temporary injunction has
been denied by the court on the basis of alleged title to the
property though the settled possession of the plaintiff over the
property has not been disputed.

I. Because the learned First Appellate Court erred in law and

failed to appreciate the conduct of the defendant that the
possession of the plaintiff was found to be established in the
suit filed by the predecessor on interest of the defendant
himself and once the learned trial court denied temporary
injunction to the predecessor in interest of the
 respondents/defendants, the defendants are estopped from
dispossessing the plaintiff except in accordance with law.

J. Because the learned First Appellate Court erred in law and

failed to appreciate that at the stage of deciding the temporary
injunction application, neither the court could arrive at a
conclusion that whether or not the title of the plaintiff is under
cloud nor can a temporary injunction application be rejected
on such ground.

K. Because the learned First Appellate Court erred in law and

failed to distinguish between the parameters to be considered
while deciding a temporary injunction application and the one
required for deciding the suit itself.

L. Because the learned First Appellate court below erred in law

by failing to distinguish between establishing a prima facie
case and proving prima facie title. At the stage of deciding a
temporary injunction application, only the existence of a prima
facie case needs to be demonstrated and failed to appreciate
that a proof of prima facie title requires the presentation of
evidence at a later stage.

M. Because the learned First Appellate Court, while deciding the

appeal filed by the respondent, recorded absolutely arbitrary
and perverse findings affecting the merits of the case. The
court erred in law and failed to appreciate that the predecessor
of the petitioner, and thereafter the petitioner, has been in
 continuous possession of the property in question since 1946.
On the said property, the petitioner has their residential
building and cowshed and has been cultivating the same.

N. Because the learned First Appellate Court below erred in law

and failed to appreciate that the petitioner to the extent of
preponderance of probability had proved his continuous,
undisturbed possessory title over the said property.

O. Because it is settled law that rights of the parties should be

preserved during the pendency of the proceedings.

P. Because the learned Judge committed manifest error of law

and has committed material irregularity in not granting an
injunction in favour of the petitioner.

Q. Because the petitioner have no other efficacious and

alternative remedy left except to invoke the extraordinary
jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India.

PRAYER

It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble

court may graciously be pleased:-
I. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari for
quashing the judgment and order dated 22.05.2024 passed by
learned Additional District Judge, Kotdwar, District Pauri
Garhwal in Misc Civil appeal no 02 of 2024, "Manoj Sharma
 and Anr Vs. Shyam Singh and Anr", (ANNEXURE No._9) by
means of which order dated 21.02.2024 passed by learned
Senior Civil Judge, Kotdwar, District Pauri Garhwal, in O.S
No. 83 of 2022, "Shyam Singh and Anr vs Manoj Sharma and
Anr" has been set aside.
II. Or/and pass any other order which this Hon’ble court may
deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case.

Date: / / 2024 (Piyush Garg)

Advocate
Counsel for the Petitioner
 IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT
NAINIITAL
AFFIDAVIT
IN
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. .................... OF 2024 (M/S)
(Under Article 227 of the Constitution of India)
DISTRICT-PAURI GARHWAL
Sri Shyam Singh.
..............Petitioner
VERSUS
Sri Manoj Sharma and Ors.
...............Respondents

Affidavit of Sri Shyam

Singh (Male) aged about 72 years
S/o Late Shri Chotiya resident of
Village Maral Ghattughat,
Udaypur Talla, Tehsil
Yamkeshwar, District Pauri
Garhwal, Uttarakhand.

DEPONENT

I, the deponent above named, do hereby solemnly affirm and

state on oath as under:-
1. That the deponent is the sole petitioner the present writ
petition and as such he is well acquainted with the facts of the
case.
2. That the facts and circumstances as have been stated in the
accompanying writ petition which for the sake of brevity are
not repeated herein may kindly be treated as a part of this
affidavit.

I the deponent above named, swear that the contents of

paragraphs no. 1 & 2 of this affidavit and those of para

no……………….………..............................

………………………………….. of the writ petition are true to my

personal knowledge, those of the paragraph no.

…………...................................................

…………….……………… of the writ petition are based on record

and those of paragraph no. …………...................................................

.........................................of the writ petition are based on legal

advice which I believe to be true. No part of this affidavit is false

and nothing material has been concealed.

SO HELP ME GOD DEPONENT

I, Jai Krishna Pandey, Advocate, High Court of Uttarakhand,

Nainital, identify the deponent Sri Shyam Singh from his Aadhar
bearing no. 3661 1467 7042 issued by Government of India.

(ADVOCATE)

Reg. No. UK-

332/2022

Bar. No. J-1814

Solemnly affirmed before me on this _________ day, of

_______ 2024 at _____ a.m./p.m., who is identified by the aforesaid
person.

I have satisfied myself by examining the deponent that he

understood the contents of this affidavit, which have been read over
and explained to him by me.

(OATH COMMISSIONER)
 IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT
NAINITAL
INTERIM RELIEF APPLICATION NO. ………… OF 2024
IN
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. .................... OF 2024 (M/S)
(Under Article 227 of the Constitution of India)
DISTRICT-PAURI GARHWAL
Sri Shyam Singh.
..............Petitioner
VERSUS
Sri Manoj Sharma and Ors.
...............Respondents

To,

The Hon’ble the Chief Justice and his other companion Judges
of the aforesaid Court.

The humble interim relief application of the petitioner named

above Most Respectfully showeth as under:-

1. That for the reasons, facts and circumstances as have been

narrated in the accompanying Writ Petition it is expedient and
necessary in the interest of justice that this Hon’ble Court may
 graciously be pleased to issue an ad interim mandamus
directing the respondents to not to interfere in the peaceful
possession of the petitioner over the property in question,
pending disposal of the instant writ petition, otherwise the
petitioner shall suffer irreparable loss and injury.

PRAYER

It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble

Court may graciously be pleased to issue an ad interim
mandamus directing the respondents to not to interfere in the
peaceful possession of the petitioner over the property in
question, pending disposal of the instant writ petition, otherwise
the petitioner shall suffer irreparable loss and injury.

Date: / / 2024 (Piyush Garg)

Advocate
Counsel for the Petitioner
 IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT
NAINIITAL
AFFIDAVIT
IN
INTERIM RELIEF APPLICATION NO…...….OF 2024
IN
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. ................. OF 2024 (M/S)
(Under Article 227 of the Constitution of India)
DISTRICT-DEHRADUN
Sri Shyam Singh and Anr.
..............Petitioner
VERSUS
Sri Manoj Sharma and Anr.
...............Respondents
Affidavit of Affidavit of Sri
Shyam Singh (Male) aged about 72
years S/o Late Shri Chotiya resident
of Village Maral Ghattughat,
Udaypur Talla, Tehsil Yamkeshwar,
District Pauri Garhwal, Uttarakhand.

DEPONENT
I, the deponent above named, do hereby solemnly affirm and
state on oath as under:-
 1. That the deponent is the sole petitioner the present writ
petition and as such he is well acquainted with the facts of the
case.
2. That the facts and circumstances as have been stated in the
accompanying writ petition which for the sake of brevity are
not repeated herein may kindly be treated as a part of this
affidavit.

I the deponent above named, swear that the contents of

paragraphs no. 1 & 2 of this affidavit and those of para

no……………….……….………………………………….. of the

interim relief application are true to my personal knowledge, those

of the paragraph no. ……………………….……………… of the

interim relief application are based on record and those of paragraph

no. ……………………… of the interim relief application are based

on legal advice which I believe to be true. No part of this affidavit is

false and nothing material has been concealed.

SO HELP ME GOD DEPONENT

 I, Jai Krishna Pandey, Advocate, High Court of Uttarakhand,
Nainital, identify the deponent Shri Shyam Singh from his Aadhar
bearing no. 3661 1467 7042 issued by Government of India.

(ADVOCATE)
Reg. No. UK-332/2022
Bar. No. J-1814

Solemnly affirmed before me on this _________ day, of

_______ 2024 at _____ a.m./p.m., who is identified by the aforesaid
person.
I have satisfied myself by examining the deponent that he
understood the contents of this affidavit, which have been read over
and explained to him by me.

(OATH COMMISSIONER)