Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Uttarakhand · body

2025 DAILYLAW 15457 (UTT)

GARIMA v. MANVENDRA SINGH

C24/31/2025 · 2025-09-18

Ravindra Maithani

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

SL. No Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS 20 C24 No. 31 of 2025 Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. None is present for the applicant. Mr. Pankaj Chaturvedi, Advocate for the respondent. Instant transfer application was allowed on 18.09.2025. Now, A Modification Application No. 4 of 2025 has been filed by the respondent on the ground that in para nos. 3, 5, 6, 7, 8 & 10 of the Court’s order, it has been recorded that the respondent is a permanent resident of Roorkee. Whereas, the respondent is permanent resident of Jhabrera. Heard. In para no.3, the Court has recorded the version of the applicant. In para no. 5, submissions of learned counsel for the applicant are noted. In para no.6, this Court has not recorded any finding that the respondent is permanent resident of Roorkee. What is recorded is the statement of learned counsel for the respondent when he has said that the respondent is the permanent resident of Roorkee. In para 7, what was responded by the learned counsel for the respondent in the Court’s query has been noted. Whatever observation has been made with regard to the residential status of the respondent, it is based on the averments that have been made. The Court has not recorded any finding as to where is the permanent resident of the respondent. Therefore, no modification of the order is required. The Modification Application No. 4 of 2025 is dismissed. (Ravindra Maithani, J.) 31.10.2025 Jitendra