2025:UHC:8028 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition Misc. Single No. 1944 of 2014 10 September, 2025 Rameshwar and Ors. --Petitioners Versus Ratiram and Anr. --Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. M.S. Tyagi, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Sunil Chandar, learned counsel for petitioners. Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent No.1. Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral) By means of the present writ petition, petitioners have challenged the impugned judgment and order dated 31.05.2014 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Laksar, District Haridwar, in Civil Revision No.86 of 2012 Ratiram Vs. Bishamber (since deceased) and Anr., whereby, the revision filed by the revisionist [respondent No.1 herein (since deceased)] was allowed and the order dated 17.09.2012 passed by the learned Trial Court was set aside. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the father of petitioners executed a gift deed dated 17.11.2001 regarding disputed property Khasra No.833 area 0.103 Hectare, situated at Village Raisi Pargana Jwalapur, Tehsil Laksar, District Haridwar in favour of respondent No.2. Thereafter, respondent No.1 instituted an Original Suit No.68 of 2005 Ratiram Vs. Bishamber and Anr., 1 2025:UHC:8028 before the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Laksar, on 04.12.2009 for cancellation of the said gift deed dated 17.11.2001. The trial of the aforesaid suit was commenced and at the stage of final arguments, respondent No.1 moved an amendment application on 27.04.2012 in the aforesaid suit with the averment that issue of being the suit time barred has been framed. The respondent No.1 wanted to add Para-6A in the plaint explaining as to when the gift-deed in question came to his knowledge. Father of the petitioners filed his objection against the amendment application on 24.07.2012 stating therein that the respondent No.1/plaintiff was very much aware of the execution of the gift deed from the very beginning. Thereafter, learned Trial Court dismissed the said amendment application vide order dated 17.09.2012 on the ground that the issues were framed in the suit on 03.01.2006; issue No.6 was framed of the effect that the suit is time barred; whereas the amendment application was presented on 27.04.2012 nearly after 6 years after the completion of evidence in the suit. From the above facts, learned Trial Court opined that the amendment application is not bonafide and the same is not necessary for the disposal of the suit, and further, if it is allowed, it would cause unnecessary delay in the proceedings of the suit. Feeling aggrieved by this, on 28.09.2012, the respondent No.1 preferred a Civil Revision No.86 of 2012 Ratiram Vs. Bishamber (since deceased) and Anr. Learned Additional District Judge, Laksar, District Haridwar has allowed the said revision vide impugned judgment and order dated 31.05.2014. Thus, the petitioners are before this Court challenging the impugned judgment and order dated 31.05.2014. 2 2025:UHC:8028 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondent No.1 was aware of the issue regarding the suit is time barred on 03.01.2006 when issue No.6 was framed in this regard and the amendment application was filed on 27.04.2012, nearly after 6 years after completion of the evidence in the suit. Thus the learned Revisional Court has erred in law by allowing the revision of the respondent No.1 without appreciating this aspect and the impugned order dated 31.05.2014 is liable to set aside. He further submits that learned Revisional Court has passed the impugned order without following the process of law and without giving any cogent reason. 4. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 filed the counter affidavit, in which, it is contended that the learned Revisional Court has rightly set aside the order dated 17.09.2012, as the said order is illegal and has been passed without exercising the judicial mind by the learned Trial Court and the findings of the learned Trial Court are perverse and the plaintiff-respondent No.1 should not be punished by the mistake of counsel. It is further contended that the suit is not time barred after the knowledge of the gift deed and the impugned order dated 31.05.2014 is just legal and proper. 5. Having considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the entire material available on record particularly the impugned judgment and order dated 31.05.2014 passed by the learned Revisional Court, I am in full agreement with the findings of the learned Revisional Court in its Para Nos.12, 13 and 14 of the impugned judgment and order. The present writ petition is of the year 2014 and further learned counsel for the 3 2025:UHC:8028 petitioners could not point out any illegality and perversity in the impugned judgment and order, therefore, there is no use of keeping the present writ petition pending. Thus, no interference is required by this Court exercising its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 6. In view of the above, the present writ petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. 7. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 10.09.2025 PN 4