AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.
Petitioners filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction in injunction. Their prayer for temporary injunction was partly allowed by Trial Court and parties to the suit were directed to maintain the status quo, vide order dated 27.01.2026. Both defendants to the suit filed Miscellaneous Appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(r) CPC, which was allowed by learned District Judge, Haridwar, vide judgment 25.03.2026. Thus, feeling aggrieved, petitioners have approached this Court.
Mr. Nikhil Singhal, learned counsel for respondents submits that petitioners had sought a restraint order against defendants from erecting a gate in front of a group-housing complex. He submits that the gate has now been erected, after judgment rendered by Appellate Court. The photograph of the gate has been enclosed as Annexure-1 to the counter affidavit.
I have gone through the judgment and order passed by learned District Judge. Learned District Judge has considered all relevant aspects, including prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury, for allowing the appeal. Learned District Judge has given valid reasons for interfering with the order passed by Trial Court.
Law is well settled that grant or refusal of injunction is discretionary. Learned District Judge has given valid reasons for interfering with the discretionary order passed by Trial Court.
Thus, this Court do not find any reason to interfere in the matter.
The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Learned Trial Court, however, is requested to make endeavor to decide the suit as early as possible.