Uttarakhand High Court
Commandant 40Th Battalion P.A.C vs Sita Ram & Anr on 9 April, 2025
Author: Vivek Bharti Sharma
Bench: Vivek Bharti Sharma
2025:UHC:2698
Judgment reserved on 10.01.2025
Judgment delivered on 09.04.2025
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Appeal from Order No.240 of 2020
Commandant 40th Battalion P.A.C. .....Appellant
Vs.
Sita Ram & Anr. ....Respondents
Present:-
1. Mr. G.S. Negi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel with Mr. I.P.
Kohli, learned Standing Counsel for the State/appellant.
2. Mr. Aditya Singh, learned counsel for the respondents.
Hon'ble Vivek Bharti Sharma, J.
By means of present appeal from order,
appellant seeks to set-aside the order dated 08.01.2020
and 16.10.2020 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division),
Haridwar in O.S. No.310 of 2019 “Sitaram and another
vs. Commandant 40 PAC”.
2. Facts, in brief are that the
respondents/plaintiffs instituted a suit being O.S.
No.310/2019 against the appellant/defendant in the
court of Civil Judge (S.D.), Haridwar seeking a decree of
perpetual prohibitory injunction thereby restraining the
appellant/defendant from interfering in the peaceful
possession and ownership of the respondents/defendants
in the suit property and further not to create any
hindrance in raising the boundary wall thereupon.
1
2025:UHC:2698
3. In the plaint, the respondents/defendants
averred that the land in question (hereinafter referred as
“suit property”) was acquired by U.P. Government in the
year 1961-62 for Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited (BHEL)
which was subsequently transferred to Irrigation
Department; that, the property in question was further
transferred to the Executive Engineer, Tehri Project in
1986; that, previously a suit, in respect of the suit
property was also filed by one Rao Mashroor Khan
stating himself owner in possession of suit property being
O.S. No.223/1998 titled Rao Mashroor Khan vs. State of
U.P. and others; that, in that suit, the appellant was
arrayed as defendant no.4; that, in his written statement,
in that suit, appellant had stated that appellant has
nothing to do with the suit property; that, eventually,
that suit was decided in favour of Executive Engineer,
Tehri Dam Project; that, in that O.S. No.223/1998 the
present appellant filed the written statement as
defendant No.4, thereby admitting that the
appellant/defendant has no concern with the
property in question; that, later on the Executive
Engineer Khara Project allotted the suit property
comprised in Khasra no.149 to one “Rinku Das” and the
actual possession whereof was also handed over to him
on 20.02.2013; that, likewise suit property comprising in
Khasra no.150 was allotted to one “Kama Das” and the
2
2025:UHC:2698
actual possession was handed over to Kama Das on
20.02.2013; that, thereafter, the names of Rinku Das
and Kama Das were entered in revenue records as
Bhumidhars with transferable rights; that, thereafter
vide registered sale deeds dated 16.11.2013 and
18.12.2013 respondents/plaintiffs Sita Ram and
Vijay Pal purchased the suit properties from Rinku
Das and Kama Das and the actual physical
possession was also taken over by them; that, the
appellant/defendant has no interest, lien or right to the
property in question but despite this the
appellant/defendant threatened to forcefully interfere
with the possession and ownership of the
respondents/plaintiffs without any basis.
4. Along with the plaint, the
respondents/plaintiffs filed an application for ad-interim
injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC. The
appellant/defendant filed the objection against the ad-
interim injunction application and contended that the
respondents/plaintiffs have got no right over the property
in question on the basis of sale deeds dated 16.11.2013
and 18.12.2013.
5. The Trial Court, after hearing the parties, vide
order dated 08.01.2020, allowed the application of
respondents/plaintiffs under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC.
3
2025:UHC:2698
Vide impugned order dated 08.01.2020, the
appellant/defendant was restrained from causing any
interference in peaceful possession of
respondents/plaintiffs of the suit property.
Thereafter, application paper no.52C2 and
paper no.56C were also filed by the
respondents/plaintiffs with allegations of interference in
the enjoyment of possession of suit property and in
construction of boundary wall thereto and it was prayed
to demarcate the property in question and to provide
police force so that the respondents/plaintiffs could
construct boundary wall for safety of property in
question.
Learned Trial Court, vide separate order dated
16.10.2020, allowed the applications of the
respondents/plaintiffs.
6. In the impugned order, the trial Court
observed that the appellant/defendant had accepted in
his objection (Paper No. 34C) that the land from Khasra
number 511/02 was allotted to the
respondents’/plaintiffs’ predecessors-in-interest namely
Rinku Das and Kama Das and it has also been accepted
that the plot allotted to the said Rinku Das and Kama
Das were sold to the plaintiffs on 16.11.2013 and
4
2025:UHC:2698
18.12.2013. The trial court further observed that in the
revenue records, the name of the plaintiffs is shown to be
registered on the face of the said sale deeds.
7. Aggrieved from the order dated 08.01.2020 and
16.10.2020, the appellant/defendant has preferred this
appeal.
Heard.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant
would submit that a non-party, namely, Rao Mashroor
Khan had also filed a Civil Revision No. 73 of 2020 before
the Hon’ble High Court against the impugned orders, in
which, the Hon’ble High Court vide order dated
04.11.2020 was pleased to stay the effect and operation
of the order dated 08.01.2020 and subsequent order
dated 16.10.2020 and directed the Civil Judge (Senior
Division), Haridwar to explain under what provision of
law he had passed the impugned order dated
16.10.2020.
He would further submit that the Coordinate
Bench of this Court, vide order dated 12.03.2021 in this
appeal, directed to list the present Appeal with that Civil
Revision No. 73 of 2020 filed by the non-party to this
suit.
5
2025:UHC:2698
9. Learned Counsel for the appellant/defendant
would further submit that vide order dated 25.01.2021,
the Civil Revision No. 73 of 2020 of non-party to the suit
namely ‘Rao Mashroor Khan vs. Sita Ram & Others‘ was
allowed thereby keeping the impugned order dated
16.10.2020 in abeyance and parties to maintain status-
quo till the maintainability of the suit in the absence of
Notice under Section 80 CPC, is decided by the trial
court.
He would further submit that the facts were
apparent before the learned court below that the land in
question was allotted to Rinku Das and Kama Das being
the displaced persons under Tehri Dam Rehabilitation
Scheme; that, they were not having any right to sell the
land in question in view of the Government Order dated
06.01.2011, which was on record, whereby it is provided
that without permission of Government for 10 years of
the allotment, the land in question cannot be sold and if
any transaction is being done during this period, the
same shall be deemed to have been null and void and the
land in question would vest in the Government.
He would further submit that the land in
question i.e. Khasra No. 511/2 had always been in the
possession of the appellant where the mango orchard is
situated which is exclusively owned and maintained by
6
2025:UHC:2698
the appellant and there are ample evidence on record
that the said land is being used by the appellant PAC for
training of cadets.
10. Per contra, learned counsel for the
respondents/plaintiffs would submit that appeal is
misconceived and filed on concocted and fabricated facts.
He would further submit that the order dated
08.01.2020 and subsequent order dated 16.10.2020 are
well reasoned based on the admitted facts and
circumstances of the case and correct interpretation of
law applicable on these admitted facts.
He would further submit that the submissions
of learned counsel for the appellant/defendant are
misconceived and misplaced; that, the Government Order
No.64/11-2011-12/01(19)/2003 dated 06.01.2011 would
not have any effect on the absolute right of ownership of
respondent/plaintiff over the suit property; that, it is an
admitted case as stated in the affidavit of appellant
Janmejaya Khanduri, Commandant 40th Battalion, PAC,
Tehri Rehabilitation Colony, Ranipur, District Haridwar,
that on 28.02.2013, the land in question was taken back
from the Irrigation Department and later allotted to Kama
Das and Rinku Das (the predecessors-in-interest of the
respondents/plaintiffs), therefore, the alleged previous
7
2025:UHC:2698
Government Order No.64/11-2011-12/01(19)/2003
dated 06.01.2011 issued prior to the allotment, shall not
have any effect to any allotment of the land to the
displaced persons under Tehri Dam Rehabilitation
Scheme subsequent to 06.01.2011.
11. Learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs
would further submit that Annexure No.3 dated
10.03.2017 to the memo of appeal itself says that the
condition in the Government Order No. 64/11-2011-
12/01(19)/2003 dated 06.01.2011 is being repealed by
the order of the Governor.
He would further submit that in the Original
Suit No. 223 of 1988 filed by Rao Mashroor Khan (a non-
party to the present suit and appeal), the appellant had
filed written statement as defendant, wherein the
appellant had unequivocally stated that the appellant has
no stake, interest, right or claim in the suit property,
therefore, the appellant/defendant cannot change its
position and stance.
12. Learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs
would further submit that the respondents/plaintiffs are
absolute owners of and in possession of the suit property;
that, in the paragraph no.5 of the written statement
(Annexure No. 6 to the memo of present appeal) of
8
2025:UHC:2698
appellant, it is admitted that the land bearing Khasra No.
511/2 was never allotted to the appellant/defendant.
He would further submit that when
appellant/defendant has admitted the position of facts in
paragraph no.5 of the affidavit in present appeal also that
the land comprised in Khasra No. 511/2 was allotted to
Kama Das and Rinku Das, the predecessors-in-interest of
the respondents/plaintiffs, on 28.02.2013, then how
could the appellant/defendant can say that they are
looking after the suit property since 1988; that, in
paragraph no. 24 of its written statement in Original Suit
No. 223 of 1988 titled ‘Rao Mashroor Khan vs. State of
Uttar Pradesh‘, the appellant/defendant has
unequivocally admitted that the appellant/defendant
does not have any right, interest and claim in the suit
property.
13. He would further submit that after the
dismissal of Original Suit No. 223 of 1988 ‘Rao Mashkoor
Khan vs. State & others’ in First Appeal No. 210 of 2002,
Rao Mashroor Khan (the revisionist in Civil Revision No.
73 of 2020) preferred Second Appeal No.128 of 2012 but
the High Court dismissed that second appeal while
recording a categorical finding that so far as the land
forming Khasra No. 511/2 is concerned the same is
recorded in the name of Canal/Irrigation Department,
9
2025:UHC:2698
State of U.P.; that, thereafter, the suit property was
allotted to Rinku Das and Kama Das, who were displaced
persons of Tehri Dam Project and the predecessors-in-
interest of respondents; that, the review application of
Rao Mashroor Khan being MCC No. 160 of 2018 was filed
but the same was also rejected vide order dated
28.06.2019; that, the order dated 05.01.2017 passed in
Second Appeal No. 128/2012 was challenged in S.L.P. by
Rao Mashroor Khan before the Hon’ble Supreme Court,
but the same was also dismissed on 02.12.2019.
14. Learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs
would further submit that this person Rao Mashroor
Khan did not have any right, interest or claim over the
suit property; that, his fabricated claim was dismissed
upto Hon’ble Supreme Court, even then he preferred the
Civil Revision No. 73 of 2020 against the order impugned
in present appeal as a third party by way of seeking
permission to file revision through Misc. Application No.
10714 of 2020; that, for unknown and inexplicable
reasons, the Coordinate Bench of this Court allowed that
Revision No. 73 of 2020 on non-existent ground that no
notice under Section 80 of C.P.C. was given before filing
the suit.
He would further submit that the Revision No.
73 of 2020 of Rao Mashroor Khan was allowed by the
10
2025:UHC:2698
same court that had dismissed his Review Application
No.160 of 2018; that, so far as the claim of
appellant/defendant in the suit pending before the trial
court is concerned, it is important to point out that in
O.S. No. 223 of 1988, the present appellant was arrayed
as defendant no.4 and in its written statement, it was
categorically stated in Para 24 that the said appellant has
no concern whatsoever with the land forming part of
Khasra No. 511/2, which was the Khasra number of the
land from which Plot No. 149 and 150 were carved out.
He would further submit that the trial court
vide impugned order dated 08.01.2020 restrained the
appellant/defendant from interfering in possession of the
respondents/plaintiffs on suit property in question after
considering the allotment and possession letters issued
by the Government in favour of the predecessor-in-
interest of the respondents/plaintiffs and the sale deeds
executed by these allottees in favour of
respondents/plaintiffs but the appellant/defendant
continued to interfere in possession of the
respondents/plaintiffs by misusing their might in
uniform and also dismantled the boundary wall of the
respondents/plaintiffs that was raised by them in order
to protect their property despite the interim order dated
08.01.2020; that, the respondents/plaintiffs were,
11
2025:UHC:2698
therefore, constrained to move application (Paper No. 52-
C-2) before the trial court and also filed application for
initiating the proceedings under Order 39 Rule 2-A which
was registered as Misc. Case No. 6 of 2020 before the
trial court.
15. Learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs
would further submit that the appellant/defendant no.3
in utter violation of interim order dated 08.01.2020
passed by learned trial court and by misusing his official
position, once again demolished the boundary wall
constructed by the respondents/plaintiffs for which the
respondents/plaintiffs moved another application under
Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC which was registered as Misc.
Case No. 33 of 2020.
He would further submit that in Misc. Case No.
33 of 2020 a report was called by the trial court from
Survey Amin, which was filed along-with the map and
photographs of the spot, which clearly showed that
boundary wall had in fact in parts been demolished by
the appellant/defendant.
16. Learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs
would further submit that it is settled law that Civil
Court while exercising inherent powers under Section
151 CPC in the facts and circumstances of the case, has
12
2025:UHC:2698
to ensure that the ends of justice should meet and no
party howsoever mighty or powerful that may be being
police in uniform, violate the due process of law and
directions issued by a court for upholding the majesty of
Courts of law.
He would further submit that the
appellant/defendant was breaching the legal rights of the
respondents/plaintiffs and also violated the directions
issued by the learned trial court by way of its order dated
08.01.2020 for which the respondents/plaintiffs were
constrained to move two successive applications under
Order 39 Rule 2-A CPC, only then the learned trial court,
after considering all facts and inspection report including
response preferred by appellant/defendant, passed the
subsequent order dated 16.10.2020 so that the ends of
justice could meet and majesty of Courts of law may be
protected.
17. Learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs
would further submit that in paragraph no. 8 of the
plaint (Annexure 1 to the Civil Revision No. 73 of 2020) it
is specifically stated that the respondents/plaintiffs
gave notice under Section 80 of C.P.C. through their
counsel Mr. Nishchal Kumar Sharma on 20.08.2019
and no reply to that notice was given by the
appellant/defendant.
13
2025:UHC:2698
He would further submit that in the impugned
order dated 16.10.2020, the trial court referred the
judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
‘Salem Advocate Bar Association vs. Union of India‘,
(2005) 6 SCC 344’ and observed in paragraph 16 that
there is no dispute about the fact that notice under
Section 80 of C.P.C. was sent to the
appellant/defendant.
He would further submit that while referring to
the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court ‘Salem
Advocate Bar Association (supra), the trial court noted
that the Hon’ble Supreme Court had directed that when
reply to the notice under Section 80 of C.P.C. is not given,
then the trial court can impose exemplary cost to recover
the same from salary of the officer due to whose
negligence or dereliction of duty to reply the same, the
Government had to face the case in the Court; that, it was
appellant/defendant who not only failed to reply the
notice and do needful by directing his officers and
policemen not to interfere in possession of
respondent/plaintiff but also misused the might of police
in uniform to deny the right to property to hapless and
helpless poor respondents/plaintiffs.
He would further submit that in the impugned
judgment dated 08.01.2020, the trial court by reasoned
14
2025:UHC:2698
and speaking judgment, after discussing all the factors
i.e. prima facie case, balance of convenience and
irreparable loss, decided the application under Order 39
Rule 1 & 2 thereby restraining the
appellant/defendant not to interfere in the peaceful
possession of the respondents/plaintiffs over the suit
property.
18. Learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs
would further submit that in view of the fact that the
appellant/defendant has unequivocally admitted the fact
in his written statement filed in the Original Suit No. 223
of 1988 that the appellant/defendant does not have any
right, interest, claim or lien on the suit property, it was
just an “Open And Shut” case for the trial court to pass
the decree of the permanent injunction; that, therefore,
to say that the trial court should not grant the full and
final relief as prayed for in the suit while disposing of the
application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 is misplaced and
misconceived in the present facts of the case.
He would further submit that in the Civil
Revision No. 73 of 2020, the observations in respect of
the counsels who were not heard, was also not in good
taste.
15
2025:UHC:2698
19. Perused the record in view of the submissions
made by the learned counsel for the respective parties.
Considered.
20. In the very inception, it would be pertinent to
note down the following facts admitted to parties:
(i) That, an Original Suit No. 223 of 1988 was
filed by Rao Mashkoor Khan in respect of the
suit property in which, the present
appellant/defendant was arrayed as
respondent no.4.
(ii) That, in that O.S. No. 233 of 1988, the
appellant/defendant filed his written statement
and in paragraph no. 24 of the additional
pleas, it was stated
“…izfroknh la[;k 4 dk fookfnr laifRr ls fdlh Hkh
izdkj dk dksbZ okLrk ugha gSA (…defendant no.4 has
nothing to do and has no concern of any
kind in respect to the property in question.)”
(iii) That, the respondents/plaintiffs clearly
stated in paragraph no. 8 of the plaint of
the present original suit that a notice dated
20.08.2019 under Section 80 of C.P.C. was
given to the appellant/defendant but no
reply was given to that suit.
16
2025:UHC:2698
(iv) That, in the impugned order dated
16.10.2020 also, the trial court observed in
unequivocal words that there was no
dispute about the fact that notice under
Section 80 of C.P.C. was given by the
respondents/plaintiffs to the
appellant/defendant.
21. This Court, however, would not like to say
anything about the submissions of the learned counsel
for the appellant/defendant that the observation of the
Coordinate Bench of this Court in its judgment dated
25.01.2021 in Civil Revision No. 73 of 2020 that
maintainability of Original Suit No. 310 of 2019 be
decided first as the suit was filed without compliance of
Section 80 of C.P.C., but it is admitted fact that in
paragraph no. 8 of the plaint of the original suit it is
specifically averred that notice under Section 80 of C.P.C.
was sent on 20.08.2019 through the counsel and no
reply was made to that notice by the
appellant/defendant. It is also to be noted that even in
paragraph no.16 of impugned judgment dated
16.10.2020, the trial court has specifically observed that
there is no dispute in respect of the issuance of notice
under Section 80 of C.P.C.
17
2025:UHC:2698
It would be pertinent to observe, at the cost of
repetition that in paragraph no. 24 of the additional pleas
of written statement filed by the appellant/defendant in
Original Suit No. 223 of 1988 stated that the
appellant/defendant has nothing to do with or has no
concern with the suit property. It would again be
pertinent to note that this fact of admission by
appellant/defendant was specifically stated in paragraph
no. 3 of the plaint of the present Original Suit No. 310 of
2019, but the appellant/defendant has not denied this
fact in his written statement in the present Original Suit
No. 310 of 2019. The only plea taken by the
appellant/defendant in his written statement was that
the suit property land is being looked after by him and
that as the property was sold in violation of the
Government Order dated 06.01.2011, therefore, the suit
property would vest in the Government. However, the
appellant/defendant is completely silent on the
Office Letter No. 483/11-2017-12/1(19)/2003 dated
10.03.2017 (Annexure No. 3 to Memo of Appeal),
whereby the Principal Secretary had stated that the
condition as per the Government Order dated
06.01.2011, (that the displaced persons shall not be
able to sell the allotted plots of the land within 10
years of the allotment of that land) is hereby
repealed by the order of Hon’ble Governor. It would,
18
2025:UHC:2698
therefore, be pertinent to note that in view of this Office
Letter the restriction, if there was any, by Government
Order dated 06.01.2011, was also repealed. It is most
important to note that at no point of time, the
appellant/defendant has stated that suit property was
ever allotted to appellant/defendant, therefore, the
appellant/defendant did not have any concern with
the suit property as the appellant/defendant is
neither owner nor in possession of the suit property
as per his own admission.
22. It is established principle of law that the
defendant should make specific denial in the written
statement and if the denial is evasive, then same would
be deemed to be an admitted fact.
Rule 3, 4 & 5 of Order 8 of C.P.C. are relevant
and same are extracted as under:-
“ORDER VIII- WRITTEN STATEMENT, SET-OFF AND COUNTER-
CLAIM
1. ……
2. ……
3. Denial to be specific.- It shall not be sufficient for a
defendant in his written statement to deny generally thegrounds alleged by the plaintiff, but the defendant must deal
specifically with each allegation of fact of which he does not
admit the truth, except damages.
19
2025:UHC:2698
4. Evasive denial.- Where a defendant denies an allegation of
fact in the plaint, he must not do so evasively, but answer thepoint of substance. Thus, if it is alleged that he received a
certain sum of money, it shall not be sufficient to deny that he
received that particular amount, but he must deny that he
received that sum or any part thereof, or else set out how
much he received. And if an allegation is made with diverse
circumstances, it shall not be sufficient to deny it along with
those circumstances.
5. Specific denial.- Every allegation of fact in the plaint, if not
denied specifically or by necessary implication, or stated to benot admitted in the pleading of the defendant, shall be taken
to be admitted except as against a person under disability:
Provided that the Court may in its discretion require any
fact so admitted to be proved otherwise than by such
admission.
(2) Where the defendant has not filed a pleading, it shall be
lawful for the Court to pronounce judgment on the basis of the
facts contained in the plaint, except as against a person under
a disability, but the Court may, in its discretion, require any
such fact to be proved.
(3) In exercising its discretion under the proviso to sub-rule
(1) or under sub-rule (2), the Court shall have due regard to
the fact whether the defendant could have, or has, engaged a
pleader.
(4) Whenever a judgment is pronounced under this rule, a
decree shall be drawn up in accordance with such judgment
and such decree shall bear the date on which the judgment
was pronounced.]”
It is important to note that in (f) of Grounds
of Appeal, it is specifically admitted by appellant that
20
2025:UHC:2698
suit property was transferred to Irrigation
Department.
It is further very important to note that in
para (i) of Grounds of Appeal, the appellant stated
that suit property was allotted to person named
Rinku Das and Kama Das.
It is also important to note that possession
of the suit property was given to Rinku Das and
Kama Das vide Possession Certificate(s) dated
20.02.2013 (Annexure Nos. 2 & 3 of counter affidavit
of respondent in Civil Revision No. 73 of 2020)
It is important to note that allottees sold
the suit property to respondents/plaintiffs by duly
executed Sale Deeds.
Therefore, the appellant/defendant cannot
be believed that he was owner in possession of the
suit property.
If appellant/defendant is misusing the suit
property for any use by stepping on it, then same is
without any right and shall amount to trespass.
23. In view of this admitted position of facts and
law, this Court is of the view that there is no specific
21
2025:UHC:2698
denial by the appellant/defendant rather it has admitted
all the facts of the plaint with necessary implications,
therefore, the suit could have been decreed straightaway
without asking any evidence whatsoever.
24. Last but not least.
The appellant/defendant is instrumentality of
the State. The appellant/defendant is not only the
Government Officer but also a high ranking police officer
from Indian Police Service. Therefore, it is not only moral
but legal duty of the appellant/defendant also to protect
the rights of every citizens and individual within its
jurisdiction. However, in the present case, it seems that
the only law that the appellant/defendant is putting into
practice is that ‘might is the right’ by misusing the power
of organization in uniform.
25. The impugned judgment dated 08.01.2020 and
order dated 16.10.2020 passed by learned Civil Judge
(Senior Division) Haridwar are well-reasoned and
speaking judgments taking into consideration of all the
admitted facts and law applicable on the facts and
circumstances of the case. Protecting the property by
raising boundary wall to one’s property is indefeasible
right of every individual, which cannot be denied or even
curtailed. The respondents/plaintiffs have strong prima
22
2025:UHC:2698
facie case in their favour. Balance of convenience also
lies in their favour. No irreparable loss is likely to be
caused to the appellant/defendant if the suit property is
bounded by the boundary wall. The Coordinate Bench of
this Court vide its judgment dated 25.01.2021 in Civil
Revision No. 73 of 2020, has simply kept the order dated
16.10.2020 in abeyance only, that too, on technical
ground that maintainability of O.S. No. 319 of 2019 be
decided first if the notice under Section 80 of CPC was
not given before filing of the suit. That is to say that the
order dated 08.01.2020 passed by trial court was not
stayed. Therefore, the order dated 08.01.2020 is affirmed.
As, it is stated in paragraph no. 8 of the plaint
the notice under Section 80 CPC was given to the
appellant/defendant, and same was also not denied,
therefore, the suit O.S. No. 319 of 2020 “Sita Ram vs.
Commandant 40th Battalion P.A.C.” cannot be said to be
not maintainable on this count either.
Therefore, in considered view of the Court, the
present appeal of the appellant/defendant is
misconceived and the appeal is hereby dismissed.
26. In view of the above observations, facts and
circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered
view that this is the fit case in which, the present Court
23
2025:UHC:2698
should exercise its inherent power under Section of 151
C.P.C. for meting out substantial justice, thereby
restraining the appellant/defendant from causing any
hindrance, obstructions or interference in the peaceful
possession of the respondents/plaintiffs over the land in
question i.e. the suit property and further restrain the
appellant/defendant not to cause any hindrance and
obstructions by himself or his staff or employees or
agents etc., in the construction of the boundary wall of
the suit property constructed by respondents/plaintiffs.
Rather this Court is of considered view that the
appellant/defendant being an important instrumentality
of the State, should see that no other person also should
cause hindrance or obstruction in the constructions of
the boundary wall by respondents/plaintiffs. If any
person causes any obstructions, then the
appellant/defendant may take appropriate steps, as per
law against that person by videographing the acts of such
obstruction or interference and place before the trial
court for appropriate orders.
27. This Court is not oblivious of the fact that in
normal course, the trial courts should not be directed,
however, in special and peculiar facts and circumstances
of the case, the trial court is requested to decide the suit
24
2025:UHC:2698
expeditiously preferably within three months from the
date of the receipt of this order.
(Vivek Bharti Sharma, J.)
09.04.2025
Akash
25
[ad_1]
Source link