The High Court of Uttarakhand dismissed a writ petition challenging a revisional order that allowed an amendment to a plaint filed nearly six years after evidence. Finding no illegality or perversity, the Court held no interference was required.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
2025:UHC:8028
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition Misc. Single No. 1944 of 2014
10 September, 2025
Rameshwar and Ors. --Petitioners
Versus
Ratiram and Anr.
--Respondents
Presence :-
Mr. M.S. Tyagi, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Sunil Chandar, learned counsel for petitioners. Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent No.1.
Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral)
By means of the present writ petition, petitioners have challenged the impugned judgment and order dated 31.05.2014 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Laksar, District Haridwar, in Civil Revision No.86 of 2012 Ratiram Vs. Bishamber (since deceased) and Anr. , whereby, the revision filed by the revisionist [respondent No.1 herein (since deceased)] was allowed and the order dated 17.09.2012 passed by the learned Trial Court was set aside.
1
2025:UHC:8028
before the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Laksar, on 04.12.2009 for cancellation of the said gift deed dated 17.11.2001. The trial of the aforesaid suit was commenced and at the stage of final arguments, respondent No.1 moved an amendment application on 27.04.2012 in the aforesaid suit with the averment that issue of being the suit time barred has been framed. The respondent No.1 wanted to add Para-6A in the plaint explaining as to when the gift-deed in question came to his knowledge. Father of the petitioners filed his objection against the amendment application on 24.07.2012 stating therein that the respondent No.1/plaintiff was very much aware of the execution of the gift deed from the very beginning. Thereafter, learned Trial Court dismissed the said amendment application vide order dated 17.09.2012 on the ground that the issues were framed in the suit on 03.01.2006; issue No.6 was framed of the effect that the suit is time barred; whereas the amendment application was presented on 27.04.2012 nearly after 6 years after the completion of evidence in the suit. From the above facts, learned Trial Court opined that the amendment application is not bonafide and the same is not necessary for the disposal of the suit, and further, if it is allowed, it would cause unnecessary delay in the proceedings of the suit. Feeling aggrieved by this, on 28.09.2012, the respondent No.1 preferred a Civil Revision No.86 of 2012 Ratiram Vs. Bishamber (since deceased) and Anr . Learned Additional District Judge, Laksar, District Haridwar has allowed the said revision vide impugned judgment and order dated 31.05.2014. Thus, the petitioners are before this Court challenging the impugned judgment and order dated 31.05.2014.
2
2025:UHC:8028
3
2025:UHC:8028 petitioners could not point out any illegality and perversity in the impugned judgment and order, therefore, there is no use of keeping the present writ petition pending. Thus, no interference is required by this Court exercising its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
( Pankaj Purohit, J .) 10.09.2025
PN
4
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court ought to interfere with the revisional court's order allowing the amendment of the plaint despite the delay.
Whether the writ petition reveals any illegality or perversity in the impugned order warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Rameshwar and Ors.
Ratiram and Anr.
Pankaj Purohit
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
