2025:UHC:10223 1 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition Misc. Single No. 461 of 2018 18 November, 2025 Tejendra Singh Bisht --Petitioner Versus Smt. Neema Bisht & others --Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. Mohit Kumar Kashyap, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Siddhartha Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no.1. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. By means of the present writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 22.02.2011 (in Misc. Case No.91/2009), passed by the District Judge, Nainital, and the order dated 12.06.2012 (in Misc. Case No.72/2011) passed by the Additional District Judge/3rd FTC, Nainital, in Original Probate Case No.22 of 2007, Smt. Neema Bisht vs. Sri Rajendra Singh Bisht and others. 2. Facts in brief are that the proceeding under Section 289 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, was initiated by respondent No.1, Smt. Neema Bisht, in the court of the District Judge, Nainital, for the grant of probate in view of a registered Will executed by the mother of the parties on 14.03.2000. In the said proceedings, the petitioner and respondents No.2 to 4 were issued notices. The respondents appeared and sought time to file objections to the probate application. However, none of the respondents filed their objections. 2025:UHC:10223 2 The petitioner also chose not to appear before the learned trial court, and consequently, the probate application was granted by ex-parte judgment and order dated 03.08.2009 in favor of respondent No.1-Neema Bisht. 3. The respondents-defendants to the probate application, except the petitioner, Tejendra Singh Bisht, were satisfied and remained passive regarding the ex-parte judgment and order dated 03.08.2009 rather accepted it. However, the petitioner-Tejendra Singh Bisht, filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the CPC to set aside the ex-parte judgment and order dated 03.08.2009 on 24.12.2009, after a considerable delay of four months. This application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC was dismissed for default of the petitioner on 22.02.2011. The petitioner filed a recall application on 09.09.2011, seeking to revive the said application, which was also dismissed by the learned 1st Additional District Judge by order dated 12.06.2012. The recall application was rejected on the ground that it was a hopelessly time- barred application. Although a delay condonation application was filed along with the recall application, it was not supported by any affidavit, and consequently, the recall application was dismissed. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 12.06.2012, the petitioner filed the present writ petition in 2018, after a delay of six years. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had not committed any delay in filing the recall application; however, he admitted that the delay condonation application filed along with the recall application was not supported by any affidavit. 5. However, learned counsel for the respondent 2025:UHC:10223 3 no.1 supported the judgment and orders saying that on each occasion there was inordinate delay on the part of the petitioner. The various applications had been filed by him only to harass respondent no.1. He further submits that there is no illegality or perversity in the judgment and orders passed by the learned trial court. 6. Heard. Perused the record of the writ petition and the judgment and orders impugned. 7. Having gone through the record, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief, as there has been no impropriety or illegality committed by the trial court. The reasons assigned by the learned trial court are quite convincing and do not warrant any interference. Further, this Court does not find any jurisdictional or procedural error in the impugned judgment and order, and therefore declines to invoke its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. 8. Interim order, if any stands dismissed. 9. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of accordingly. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 18.11.2025 AK