Uttarakhand High Court
AO/364/2025 of MOHAMMAD YAMEEN Vs VIKAS CHHOKAR on 17 April 2026
OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Appeal From Order No. 364 of 2025 Mohammad Yameen and another ….....Appellants Versus Vikas Chhokar ......Respondent Present:- Mr. Tajhar Qayyum and Mr. Himanshu Agarwal, Advocates for the appellants. Mr. Piyush Garg and Mr. Pulak Agarwal, Advocates for the
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Appeal From Order No. 364 of 2025
Mohammad Yameen and another
….....Appellants
Versus
Vikas Chhokar
......Respondent
Present:-
Mr. Tajhar Qayyum and Mr. Himanshu Agarwal, Advocates for the appellants.
Mr. Piyush Garg and Mr. Pulak Agarwal, Advocates for the respondent.
Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
The challenge in this appeal is made to the orders dated 31.05.2025 and 04.10.2025, passed in Civil Suit No. 32 of 2025, Vikas Chhokar v. Mohd. Yameen and another (“the suit”), by the court of Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Ramnagar, District Nainital.
2.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
3.
The respondent/plaintiff did file the suit seeking mandatory injunction and permanent injunction. On the date, when the suit was filed i.e. 31.05.2025, the court passed status quo order and fixed 11.07.2025 for disposal of the application under Order 39
Rules 1 & 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (“the Code”).
Subsequently, the appellant/defendant did file an application under Order 39 Rule 4 of the Code for vacating the status quo order. This application was rejected by the court vie order dated 04.10.2025. Both these orders are impugned in this appeal.
4.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the suit per se is not maintainable; one of the reliefs is with regard to
Viyanimitikaran of the land, which is category-3 land, a relief which cannot be granted by the civil court. He submits that the status quo order is bad in the eyes of law, therefore, it ought to have been vacated on an application filed by the defendant/appellant under Order 39
Rule 4 of the Code.
5.
Learned counsel for the appellant also submits that the appellant has also filed objections to the application under Order 39
Rules 1 & 2 of the Code and the next date fixed is 08.05.2026 in the court below. He submits that the court below may be directed to decide the application 6C under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of the Code on merits after considering the objections that has been filed by the appellant.
6.
To it, the learned counsel for the respondent has no objection.
7.
The court below is directed to decide the application 6C
under
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
Order
Rules 1 &
of the Code filed by the respondent/plaintiff on the next date fixed or within next three weeks thereafter, as it is stated that the objections have already been filed on it.
8. Learned counsel for both the parties have given statement that they will not seek adjournment for disposal of application 6C filed under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of the Code.
9. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.)
17.04.2026 Avneet/