Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Uttarakhand · body

2025 DAILYLAW 11849 (UTT)

ABDUL GAFFAR v. KALEMATA

SPA/320/2024 · 2025-03-11

Ashish Naithani, G Narendar

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2025:UHC:1720-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL HON’BLE MR. G. NARENDAR, C.J. HON’BLE MR. ASHISH NAITHANI, J (Leave to Appeal No.01 of 2024) In Special Appeal No.320 of 2024 Abdul Gaffar …Appellant Versus Kalemata and others …Respondents Presence:- Mr. Parikshit Saini, learned counsel for the appellant. Ms. Rajni Supyal, learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand. Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the private respondents. JUDGMENT : (per HON’BLE MR. G. NARENDAR, C.J.) Heard Mr. Parikshit Saini, learned counsel for the appellant, Ms. Rajni Supyal, learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand and Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the private respondents. 2. The appellant not being a party to the order, the application for condonation of delay requires to be condoned and the same is accordingly condoned. Delay condonation application stands allowed. 3. Leave granted. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that there are other litigations involving the appellant and petitioner, which are pending before this Court. That in proceedings initiated by appellant, an interim order was passed and being aggrieved by the same, the 1 2025:UHC:1720-DB respondents herein, had preferred a writ petition, and certain orders have been passed therein. 5. Now in the instant writ petition when the matters are live before this Court and the authorities, the respondents, without arraying the appellant as a party, have convinced the learned Single Judge to pass orders directing the revenue authorities to carry out an exercise under the garb of which, the respondents were attempting to oust the appellant from possession. 6. The facts narrated by the appellant are suffice to direct the appellant to avail the remedy of review. It is apparent that none of these facts, as narrated above, have been placed before the learned Single Judge. 7. In that view of the matter, the special appeal is disposed of by reserving liberty to the appellant to seek remedy, by way of review before the learned Single Judge. G. NARENDAR, C.J. ASHISH NAITHANI, J. Dt:11th March, 2025 Arti 2