High CourtsSingle Bench

Magan Singh vs Sirmaur Singh And Another

Uttarakhand High Court · Decided on 5 January 2026 · Citation: (2026) 01 UK CK 1845

HON’BLE JUDGES
Pankaj Purohit, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code Of Civil Procedure, 1908 — Section 151 · Code Of Civil Procedure, 1908 — Order 39 Rule 1, Order 39 Rule 2 · Constitution Of India, 1950 — Article 227
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition Miscellaneous Single No. 3619 Of 2025
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 385 words

Pankaj Purohit, J

1.

This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by petitioner-plaintiff seeking indulgence of this Court for a direction to learned Trial Court to decide the application dated 04.02.2025 filed by him under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC read with Section 151 of C.P.C. within a stipulated time and further for a direction to respondents not to create the third party interest in the property in-question.

2.

In substance, the petitioner wants the application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC read with Section 151 of C.P.C. for temporary injunction to be decided expeditiously.

3.

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the suit was filed for cancellation of sale deed and along with the suit, application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC read with Section 151 of C.P.C. has also been filed on 04.02.2025. Respondents-defendants put in appearance in the said suit on 29.04.2025. But, almost for a period of one year, no objection to the temporary injunction application has so far been filed by respondents-defendants and unnecessary adjournments have been sought by respondents-defendants in the suit, which is being allowed by learned Trial Court after being objected by petitioner-plaintiff, on cost of Rs.300/-.

4.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the pleadings as well as the order-sheet annexed by the learned counsel for petitioner-plaintiff. From order-sheet, it is reflected that for one reason and the other, matter is being adjourned. Right of speedy justice is a fundamental right accrued in favour of petitioner-plaintiff in view of the constitutional scheme, who is 60 years of age. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for petitioner has succeeded in making out a case for a direction to be issued to learned Trial Court concerned for expeditious disposal of application for temporary injunction filed by petitioner-plaintiff after calling for respondents/defendants’ objection.

5.

Accordingly, present writ petition is allowed. Learned Trial Court is hereby directed to decide the application No.6C2 under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC read with Section 151 of C.P.C. filed by petitioner-plaintiff expeditiously within a period of 30 days from the date of production of certified copy of this order, after giving 15 days time to respondents-defendants to file objection to the said application.