2025:UHC:9759 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition Misc. Single No. 3066 of 2025 Raj Kumar Dass @ Ram Charan Dass --Petitioner Versus Nirmal Dass @ Nishant Kumar --Respondent ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. Jitendra Chaudhary and Mr. Navneet Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral) This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner challenging the judgment and order dated 08.08.2025 (Annexure No.1 to the writ petition) passed by the learned Third Additional District Judge, Haridwar in Misc. Case No.109 of 2023 Nirmal Dass Vs. Raj Kumar, and further prayed for to dismiss the restoration application along with delay condonation application registered as Misc. Case No.109 of 2023 moved by the respondent-plaintiff in Civil Appeal No.43 of 2017 Mehant Seeta Dasi Vs. Nirmal Dass, pending before the Court of learned Third Additional District Judge, Haridwar. 2. The brief facts of the case are that one Mehant namely Sri Seeta Ram Dass was recorded original owner of the property in dispute situated in Bhupatwala Haridwar. Late Mehant Seeta Dasi was the disciple of Mehant Seeta Ram Dass, therefore, during his life time, Mehant Seeta Ram Dass executed a registered will dated 22.08.1980 in favour of Mehant Seeta Dasi (original defendant). Present petitioner is the disciple of Late Mehant Seeta Dasi, therefore, upon death of original defendant, he was substituted as 1 2025:UHC:9759 defendant No.1/1 in the array of parties. Respondent executed a forged will claiming himself as Mehant Nirmal Dass disciple of Late Mehant Ram Tehal Dass and then filed a civil suit before the competent civil court. In the year 2013, respondent filed Original Suit No.115 of 2013 Nirmal Dass @ Nishant Kumar Vs. Mehant Seeta Dasi, before the court of learned Civil Judge (J.D.), Haridwar, which was decided vide judgment and order dated 30.05.2015 and the suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiff/respondent. Petitioner, thereafter, preferred a Civil Appeal under Section 96 of CPC before the First Appellate Court i.e. learned 3rd Additional District Judge, Haridwar, which was registered as Civil Appeal No.43 of 2017 Mehant Seeta Dasi through its legal heir vs. Nirmal Dass, who framed two additional issues i.e. issue Nos.8 and 9. These issues were decided by learned Trial Court vide its decision dated 06.02.2020 and directed the parties to appear before the learned First Appellate Court on 16.10.2020. When the respondent-plaintiff did not join the proceedings, learned First Appellate Court decided the said Civil Appeal vide order dated 20.04.2022. The said order dated 20.04.2022 attained finality after expiry of statutory period for filing of second appeal and as such the rights of parties were decided accordingly and the controversy was set at rest. Thereafter, after a lapse of one year and five months i.e. on 17.10.2023, respondent-plaintiff moved a restoration application along with delay condonation application for recalling the order dated 20.04.2022, which was registered as Misc. Case No.109 of 2023 Nirmal Dass Vs. Raj Kumar. The said application was allowed by the learned First 2 2025:UHC:9759 Appellate Court vide order dated 08.08.2025. Thus, the petitioner is before this Court. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that learned First Appellate Court has wrongly granted benefit of Covid period to the respondent-plaintiff for the purpose of condoning the delay because the respondent-plaintiff willfully and deliberately disappeared from the Court proceedings of first appellate stage and as such the delay condonation application was liable to be rejected, but reverse to it, the learned First Appellate Court allowed the same and accepted the restoration application. 4. He further submits that the said action of learned First Appellate Court is illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in the eyes of law; learned First Appellate Court failed to perform its legal duties in right prospective. He also submits that the petitioner has no other efficacious remedy except to invoke the supervisory jurisdiction by invoking the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the impugned order as well as the entire record available on record. There is no illegality in the impugned order dated 08.08.2025 passed by the learned First Appellate Court i.e. Third Additional District Judge, Haridwar. Since, the Misc. Case is pending before the learned First Appellate Court and lis should be generally decided on merits, this Court thinks that there is no illegality committed by the learned First Appellate Court while condoning the delay, therefore, no interference is required exercising its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the 3 2025:UHC:9759 Constitution of India. Let the restoration application pending before the learned Appellate Court be decided on merits. 6. Accordingly, the present writ petition fails and is dismissed in-limine. However, it is directed that the learned First Appellate Court shall decide the restoration application expeditiously but not later than three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. 7. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 06.11.2025 PN 4