Dismissed¶19

Puran Chandra Joshi v. Leela Devi

Uttarakhand HC27 Nov 2025WPMS/3295/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Uttarakhand High Court Nainital; Article 227 supervisory jurisdiction; Order 26 Rule 9 CPC; application 89 Ga; Survey Commission / local commissioner appointment; rejection of survey application upheld; evidence closed; 2016 suit; delaying tactics; writ dismissed in limine; Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) Haldwani; First Additional District Judge Haldwani; Original Civil Suit No.06 of 2016; Civil Revision No.23 of 2025; boundary dispute; Pankaj Purohit, J.

What did the court decide?

Having heard counsel and gone through the impugned judgments and orders and the entire material on record, this Court finds no illegality in the impugned judgments and orders of the courts below and is in full agreement with them. ¶18

Puran Chandra Joshi Vs Leela Devi — Writ and Judicial Review | Uttarakhand HC (2025)

¶1

2025:UHC:10542

¶2

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

¶3

Writ Petition Misc. Single No.3295 of 2025

¶4

27 November, 2025

¶5

Puran Chandra Joshi --Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Leela Devi and Ors. --Respondents

¶8

Presence :-

¶9

Mr. Vishesh Srivastava, learned counsel for petitioner.

¶10

Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral)

¶11

This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner challenging the judgment and order dated 29.04.2025 (Annexure No.6 to the writ petition) passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Haldwani, District Nainital in Original Civil Suit No.06 of 2016 Puran Chandra Joshi Vs. Leela Devi , whereby, the application No.89 Ga under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC filed by the petitioner-plaintiff was rejected; as well as the judgment and order dated 15.11.2025 (Annexure No.8 to the writ petition) passed by learned First Additional District Judge, Haldwani, District Nainital, in Civil Revision No.23 of 2025 Puran Chandra Joshi Vs. Leela Devi and Ors. , whereby, the revision preferred by the petitioner-plaintiff was rejected.

¶12

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the learned Courts below illegally and improperly rejected the application 89 Ga filed by the petitioner for issuing Survey Commission to survey the spot for identification of the land by holding that the evidences have been closed, matter is very old i.e. 2016 and the parties have to prove their case by pleading and evidence and the Court is not a way to collect evidence for any party.

¶13

He further submits that whenever, there is a controversy of the boundaries, the effective and proper

¶14

¶15

2025:UHC:10542

¶16

remedy as well as tool to get the actual matrix before Court for better acknowledgment and for proper assistance of the Court, the appointment of Survey Commissioner is always fruitful, however, rejecting the application for appointment of the Survey Commission would carry gross miscarriage of justice, thus, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside.

¶17

He further contends that the impugned orders passed by learned Courts Below are illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in the eyes of law, thus, the impugned orders are liable to set aside. He also contends that the petitioner has no other efficacious remedy except to invoke the supervisory jurisdiction by invoking the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶18

Having heard the learned counsel for petitioner and having gone through the impugned judgments and orders as well as the entire material available on record, this Court thinks that there is no illegality in the impugned judgments and orders passed by learned Courts Below. This Court is in full agreement with the learned Courts Below. Since the evidences have been closed and the matter is very old of the year 2016, it appears nothing but a kind of delaying tactics on the part of petitioner, therefore, this Court is of the view that no interference is required exercising its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶19