Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Uttarakhand · body

2025 DAILYLAW 8504 (UTT)

MOHAN LAL v. VINOD KUMAR

WPMS/1942/2025 · 2025-07-10

Manoj Kumar Tiwari

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 JUDGE’S ORDERS WPMS/1942/2025 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J Mr. Anshu Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner. 2. Mr. Anuj Kumar Tyagi, Advocate for the caveator. 3. Respondents filed an application for release of a shop, which was allowed by the Prescribed Authority, on 04.11.2024. An application for executing the release order was filed by the respondents. 4. Petitioner contends that the release order was passed ex parte, therefore, he filed an application for setting aside the ex parte release order. 5. By this petition, petitioner is seeking the following relief:- “A- Issue writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus to Learned P.A. Court/Civil Judge (Senior Division), Roorkee District Haridwar to adjudicate the restoration application no. 34 of 2025 MohanLal Vs. Smt. Nirmala Devi (Deceased) & others before passing any order in execution no. 1 of 2024, Vinod Kumar & others Vs. Mohanlal.” 6. Petitioner has sought a writ of mandamus to the Prescribed Authority / Civil Judge (Senior Division), Roorkee. 7. While exercising power under Article 227 of the Constitution, writ of mandamus cannot be issued to a Subordinate Court or Tribunal. Thus, the relief as prayed cannot be granted. 8. However, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to petitioner to move appropriate application before the Executing Court and application, if filed, shall be dealt with, as per law. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J) 10.07.2025 Navin