Arvind Kumar vs Smt. Sarita & Ors.

Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

The challenge in this writ petition is made to the order dated 14.08.2026, passed in RCC Execution Case No.04 of 2025, Smt. Sarita and others Vs. Arvind Kumar and others, by the court of Prescribed Authority/Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Haldwani, District Nainital. By the impugned order, directions were issued to handover the possession of the disputed property to respondent no.1 and others.

Instant petition was taken for hearing on 25.08.2026 by this Court and the Court directed the parties to maintain status quo qua property in question.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

Learned counsel for the respondents submits that against the impugned order on 24.08.2026 itself, the petitioner had filed Civil Revision No.40 of 2026, Arvind Kumar Vs. Sarita and others in the court of the District Judge, Nainital and this fact was also concealed on 25.08.2026, when this petition came up for hearing. It is argued that, in fact, the petitioner had already availed the remedy of review before the District Judge, Naintial and this writ petition ought not to have been entertained. But, due to concealment of facts, the writ petition was entertained and stay order was passed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner admits that he had filed the revision against the impugned order in the court of District Judge, Nainital, but he submits that on that date the court had said that the review was not maintainable. No order was passed on that date and it was uploaded on the next date i.e. on 26.08.2026 and since execution was imminent, the instant petition was filed.

Fact remains that in the petition the petitioner concealed the fact that he had already assailed the impugned order in a civil revision before the court of District Judge, Nainital.

The Court wanted to know from the learned counsel for the petitioner, as to why the material facts concealed on 25.08.2026 before this Court, when the petition was entertained and status quo order was passed?

Mr. Mohit Mainali, learned counsel for the petitioner has no reply.

Before filing the writ petition before this Court on 25.08.2026, the petitioner had already challenged the impugned order in Civil Revision No.40 of 2026, Arvind Kumar Vs. Sarita and others in the court of the District Judge, Nainital on 24.08.2026. This fact was concealed and status quo order obtained by the petitioner on 25.08.2026. Since the impugned order had already been challenged by the petitioner before the District Judge, Nainital and was entertained, there is no reason to entertain the writ petition. It was entertained because the material facts were concealed by the petitioner. In view of it, this Court is of the view that there is no reason to entertain this petition. It deserves to be dismissed.

The writ petition is dismissed.

Learned counsel for the respondents submits that some amount of rent has been deposited by the respondent, pursuant to order of this Court in executing court. The respondent may be permitted to withdraw the amount.

The respondents are at liberty to seek withdrawal of the amount of rent that has been deposited pursuant to the decree in the executing court.