Dismissed

Sumit Kumar v. Iiird Fast Track Court/a.D.J. Hardwar and Ors.

Uttarakhand HC2 Nov 2019WPMS/246/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the revisional court's order allowing the impleadment of the power of attorney holder in a suit for cancellation of a sale deed. The Single Judge found no illegality and dismissed the petition, vacating an interim order.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; interim order vacated; trial court directed to decide suit within six months.

Sumit Kumar Vs Iiird Fast Track… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Uttarakhand HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No. 246 of 2012

Sumit Kumar

………….Petitioner

Versus

IIIrd Fast Track Court/Additional District Judge, Haridwar and others

¶6

……...Respondents

¶7

Present : Ms. Vandana Singh, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Siddhartha Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Siddhartha Sah, Advocate for respondent no. 3.

¶8

Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral)

¶9

The petitioner before this Court has filed the present writ petition challenging the order dated 19.01.2012, whereby the learned revisional court has allowed the impleadment application moved by private respondent no. 4.

¶10

A suit for cancellation of sale deed was filed by the present petitioner, which is pending before the Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Haridwar. The land in dispute was initially purchased by the petitioner through the power of attorney holder of the original owner. This was done vide sale deed dated 05.01.2000. Later the power of attorney holder of the owner sold out the same land to a third person vide sale deed dated 27.02.2004. It was this sale deed dated 27.02.2004 for cancellation of which the suit was filed and the owner of the property was made a party. Meanwhile, the power of attorney holder moved an impleadment application before the court below, which was dismissed by the learned trial court vide order dated 21.01.2010.

¶11

¶12

Aggrieved, the power of attorney holder moved a revision before the revisional court, which was allowed by the revisional court vide order dated 19.01.2012. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that owner of the property has already been made a party before the court below and there was no occasion to implead the power of attorney holder as a party.

¶14

This contention of the petitioner is not correct. The land was sold by the power of attorney holder and therefore he has a right to place his case before the court below. This Court finds no illegality in the order passed by the learned revisional court.

¶15

Consequently, writ petition is dismissed. Interim order dated 22.02.2012 is hereby vacated. The trial court is directed to decide the suit as expeditiously as possible, but definitely within a period of six months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.

¶16

(Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 02.11.2019

¶17

Avneet/

Sumit Kumar v. Iiird Fast Track Court/a.D.J. Hardwar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sumit Kumar v. Iiird Fast Track Court/a.D.J. Hardwar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Priyanwanda Vs Tanvir Akhtar Kurashi And Anr.

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt Lata Devi and Others

Smt Lata Devi and Others Vs Vijay Kumar and Another

Ims University Vs State Information Commissioner Dehradun and Another

Vedansh Dwivedi Vs State Of Uttarakhand and Another

Executive Engineer Electricity Distribution Division Uttarakhand Power Corporation Ltd. Almora Vs Smt. Tara Jeena and Another