IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 1795 of 2006 (M/S) Mohan Lal Kandwal …Petitioner Versus Dileep Kumar Mishra ….Respondents …….. Mr. Lok Pal Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. Alok Singh, Senior Advocate with Mr. D. Barthwal, Advocate for the Respondent. HON’BLE V.K. GUPTA, C.J. After hearing the detailed arguments of the learned Counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the impugned Order dated 29th November, 2006 passed by the learned District Judge, district Pauri Garhwal, I feel convinced that in the facts and circumstances of the case the learned Court below has rightly passed the Order of restoration of status quo ante as far as the possession of the shop in question in favour of the respondent is concerned. 2. Undoubtedly, the respondent is the tenant of the petitioner in the shop in question. Whereas the petitioner has filed a suit for respondent’s eviction from the shop in question, the respondent also had filed a suit for injunction against the petitioner restraining his forcible, illegal and unauthorized dispossession at the hands of the petitioner except in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the law. Even though, the Trial Court had initially granted interim injunction in favour of the respondent, in the suit filed by him, on 20th September, 2006 the temporary injunction application was rejected by the Trial Court. On 23rd September, 2006, the respondent filed an appeal before the learned District Judge. On that date, the learned District Judge passed an ad interim injunction for protecting the possession of the respondent. On that date itself, before the aforesaid ad interim order came to be passed, the petitioner had appeared in the said appeal as the opposite party thereat. The petitioner did not inform or report to the appellate court that he had taken over the possession of the shop in question that day. 3. The contention of the respondent herein before the appellate court was that in the evening of 23rd September, 2006, the petitioner herein had forcibly disposed the respondent. 4. The story put forth by the petitioner that on 22nd September, 2006 the respondent himself had voluntarily, on his own volition and free will handed over the possession of the shop to the petitioner and executed a document also in that behalf is unbelievable for two reasons; firstly, this information was not given to the appellate court on 23rd September, 2006. secondly, until the decision of the Appeal on 29th November, 2006 also, this information was never given to the Appellate Court. In addition to the aforesaid two grounds, the story put forth by the petitioner is also not believable because when the two suits between the parties were pending and if the parties wanted to enter into an amicable settlement, why did they not approach the Court for recording the compromise. Rather, in a hush-hush manner a document was allegedly executed outside the Court, bypassing the Court. 5. On the basis of the aforesaid reasons, I see no merit in this writ petition and while confirming the impugned Order passed by the learned District Judge, Pauri Garhwal, I dismiss the petition but without any order as to costs. (V.K. Gupta, C.J.) 22.7.2008 Avneet