IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Civil Revision No. 192 of 2023 Manorama Mathur. ………………… Revisionist. Versus Raj Singh Chhetri Alias Indra Bahadur Chhetri and Another. ……………Respondents. Present: Ms. Gayatri Puri, Mr. Narender Yadav and Mr. Jayant Singh Chauhan, learned counsel for the revisionist/plaintiff. Mr. Siddhartha Singh and Mr. Priyanshu Gairola, learned counsel for the respondent. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Thapliyal, J. 1. The revisionist/plaintiff preferred a suit for eviction against the defendant in the court of Civil Judge (J.D.), Dehradun, which was dismissed exparte on 06.11.2012 against which a civil appeal was preferred and the same was allowed and the exparte judgment was set aside and the matter was remanded back on 08.03.2018. 2. Thereafter, suit was decreed exparte on 03.11.2018 against which defendant filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13, which was allowed and the suit was restored but again on 06.08.2019 when the defendant did not turn up the Trial Court proceeded exparte against him and again the suit was decreed exparte against the defendant on 28.08.2019. 3. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed an execution case no. 16 of 2019 and subsequently filed a writ petition under Article 227 i.e. WPMS No. 1336 of 2021 for expediting the execution proceeding, which was disposed of finally on 15.07.2021 by directing to the Executing Court to expedite the execution proceeding. Thereafter, the respondent/defendant again filed an application under Order 9 2 Rule 13 of CPC for recalling the exparte judgment and decree dated 28.08.2019, which was dismissed by the Trial Court against which a civil appeal no. 31 of 2021 was preferred by the defendant, which was allowed and again the matter was remanded back to the Trial Court. 4. Thereafter, the issue of valuation of suit was raised and the Trial Court directed to the plaintiff to amend the plaint and pursuant thereto the plaint was also amended; however, the plaint was returned to the plaintiff on pecuniary jurisdiction of civil court to file it before the appropriate court. 5. Thereafter, the plaintiff submitted her plaint before the appropriate court and then move a miscellaneous application, wherein, she prays for that the proceeding be commenced from the stage when the earlier Trial Court left it out but the application was rejected on the ground that since the plaint was returned to the plaintiff on the ground of pecuniary jurisdiction therefore the proceeding will be commenced denovo. 6. Being aggrieved with this, the instant revision has been preferred. 7. No doubt, on earlier two occasions i.e. on 03.11.2018 and 28.08.2019 the Trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff/revisionist which itself shows that the defendant never cooperate with the trial. It is contended that the plaintiff is a senior citizen aged about 83 years and residing in U.K. and it is very difficult for her to participate in the Trial Court proceeding and now she is coming in February, 2026, to India and will remain here approximately for four months and as such learned counsel submits that if the court comes to the conclusion that the proceeding be commenced denovo then atleast the Trial Court may be directed to expedite the trial as expeditiously as possible. 3 8. On the other side, Mr. Siddhartha Singh, learned counsel for the respondent/defendant, submits that there is no illegality in the order impugned since the plaint was returned on the ground of pecuniary jurisdiction. 9. I found force on submission of Mr. Siddhartha Singh. Now, taking into consideration that twice the suit was decreed exparte since the defendant never turned up before the Trial Court to cross-examine the plaintiff. Now, admittedly the plaint has been returned on the ground of pecuniary jurisdiction and the plaint has been submitted before the appropriate court and the WS has also been filed and as such Trial Court rightly observed and held that the proceeding will be commence denovo. Now, taking into consideration the age of the plaintiff, who is 83 years old and residing in U.K., the Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial of O.S. No. 320 of 2023 (Old No. 441 of 2011) positively within a period of four months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. 10. It is further made clear that the Trial Court shall not grant any unnecessary adjournment to the defendant and if the defendant did not turn up to participate in the Trial proceeding the liberty is given to the Trial Court to proceed exparte against the defendant but in any way the Trial Court should expedite the trial positively within four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order taking in to consideration the age of the plaintiff. 11. Subject to the above observation and direction as above, the writ petition is disposed of finally. (Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) 06.01.2026 PR