2025:UHC:8448 1 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition Misc. Single No. 2722 of 2025 22 September, 2025 Manisha Sharma Alias Manishadutt & others --Petitioners Versus Virendra Gusain & others --Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. Sidhartha Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners/plaintiffs. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J. This writ petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioners have put to challenge the order dated 18.11.2024 passed by learned Civil Judge (J.D.), Rishikesh in O.S. No.70 of 2022, Smt. Manisha Sharma & others vs. Virendra Singh Gusain & others, whereby the application under Order 9 Rule 7 of CPC moved by the contesting respondents/defendants was allowed and further order dated 11.08.2025 passed by learned 1st Additional District Judge, Rishikesh in Civil Revision No.24 of 2024, Smt. Manisha Sharma & others vs. Virendra Singh Gusain & others, whereby the revision filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs has been held as not maintainable. 2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners/plaintiffs that in Original Suit No. 70 of 2022, Smt. Manisha Sharma & Others vs. Virendra Singh Gusain & Others, the suit was proceeded ex-parte vide orders dated 04.03.2023 and 25.03.2023, whereby the learned trial court directed that the suit be proceeded ex-parte 2025:UHC:8448 2 against contesting respondents/defendants. Feeling aggrieved by the said ex-parte orders, the contesting defendants filed two applications under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC, dated 12.07.2023 and 28.11.2023 respectively, seeking recall of the said orders. These applications were allowed by the learned trial court vide order dated 18.11.2024, whereby the order dated 25.03.2023 was recalled. Aggrieved by the said order dated 18.11.2024, the petitioners/plaintiffs filed Civil Revision No. 24 of 2024, Smt. Manisha Sharma & Others vs. Virendra Singh Gusain & Others. However, the said revision was dismissed vide order dated 11.08.2025 by the learned revisional court, holding that the revision was not maintainable, as it was filed against an interlocutory order. 3. Be that as it may, since the impugned order dated 18.11.2024 merely recalls the order proceeding ex parte against the contesting defendants, this Court does not find it appropriate to interfere with the matter by invoking its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 4. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed in limine. 5. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 22.09.2025 AK