Pankaj Purohit, J
1. This writ petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, whereby the petitioner has put to challenge the order dated 10.10.2025, passed by learned Civil Judge (S.D.). Haridwar in Misc. Case No.4 of 2025, Anil Goel Vs. Ranjan Kumar Chandwani and others, whereby learned Judge rejected the application of temporary injunction numbered as 26C2 preferred by the petitioner.
2. It is case of the petitioner that the an Original Suit No.232 of 2020, Ranjan Kumar Chandwani Vs. Anil Goel and others, for cancellation of sale deed dated 24.07.2015 executed by one – Julfikar in favour of the petitioner was filed.
3. The said suit was decreed ex parte by the learned trial court vide judgment and decree dated 06.12.2024. The petitioner moved an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of C.P.C. for setting aside the ex parte judgment and decree dated 06.12.2024, on 18.01.2025 along with delay condonation application in which the delay has not been condoned as yet. In the said application under Order 9 Rule 13 of C.P.C. an Application Paper No.26C2 was filed by the petitioner for temporary injunction on 03.10.2025.
4. The said application was rejected by the trial court on the ground that the judgment and decree passed in favour of respondent no.1 – Ranjan Kumar Chandwani has yet not been set aside and therefore no ground for temporary injunction is made out in favour of the petitioner-applicant.
5. I have gone through the judgment and order passed by the learned trial court and the record of the present writ petition. I am of the view that the trial court was justified in passing the impugned order simply for the reason that the Application under Order 9 Rule 13 of C.P.C. has yet not been registered as a miscellaneous case because it was a time barred application and therefore no temporary injunction could have been passed in favour of the petitioner, therefore this Court is of the view that there is no illegality in the said judgment and order warranting interference.
6. Accordingly writ petition stands dismissed; however trial court is directed to consider the delay condonation application which is registered as Misc. Case No.4 of 2025 expeditiously within a period of 15 days from the date of production of certified copy of this order.
