2025:UHC:8276 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Civil Revision No. 98 of 2023 17 September, 2025 Kishan Gopal Agarwal --Revisionist Versus Mohd Mustaq --Respondent -------------------------------------------------------------- Present:- Mr. Dinesh Chandra Joshi, learned counsel for the Applicant. Mr. Sudhir Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent. -------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. 1. The revisionist filed the suit for ejectment and arrear of rent against the respondent herein. The revisionist was cross-examined and thereafter the evidence of the defendant almost completed but in the meantime an application was moved by the revisionist under Order 18 Rule 17 of CPC by submitting that in the suit the evidence of the plaintiff was recorded through an affidavit but the original A.D. notice which was already placed on record was never been opened nor the notice was proved and it is very necessary that notice be proved for proper adjudication of the suit. This application was rejected by the Judge, SCC/2nd Addl. District Judge, Haldwani on 12.05.2023 and being aggrieved with the same instant revision has been filed. 2. The application was rejected by the 2nd Addl. District Judge by observing that evidence of the defendant almost completed and now by moving such an application the 1 2025:UHC:8276 plaintiff wants to fill up the lacuna which is nothing but a delaying tactics on the part of the plaintiff. Admittedly, the suit filed by the plaintiff/revisionist is still pending for final adjudication though evidence of the defendant almost completed but for fair justice this Court is of the view that if certain documents are part of record then an opportunity should be given to the plaintiff, and merely on the ground that evidence of the defendants are completed such an opportunity should not be denied particularly when those documents are part of record. 3. Mr. Sudhir Kumar, learned counsel who appears for the respondent submits that such an application should not be entertained particularly when the plaintiff was already cross-examined and such an attempt of the plaintiff is nothing but to fill up the lacuna which is not permissible. 4. After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and further taking into consideration that the SCC suit was filed by the present revisionist and he wants to prove certain documents which were already part of the record, therefore, this Court is of the view that for substantial justice and proper adjudication of the suit single opportunity should be given to the revisionist/plaintiff with the further stipulation that the trial court expedite the proceedings within stipulated period keeping in view the fact that the evidence of defendant have already been completed. 5. In such an eventuality, the instant civil revision is disposed of finally by setting aside the order passed by the Judge, SCC/2nd Addl. District Judge, dated 2 2025:UHC:8276 12.05.2023 by allowing the application of the revisionist moved under Order 18 Rule 17 of CPC with the further direction that the revisionist/ plaintiff shall appear before the Court concerned on 20.09.2025 for his further cross- examination in reference to the document regarding which the application was moved under order 18 Rule 17 of the CPC. It is made clear that if the revisionist failed to appear on 20.09.2025, then no further opportunity shall be given to the revisionist. It is also made clear that after completion of further cross-examination of the plaintiff/revisionist on the date fixed, i.e., 20.09.2025, the trial court will proceed with the matter and conclude the trial positively within one month thereafter and no adjournment shall be granted to either of the party. 6. Let a certified copy of this order be supplied to the counsel for the parties within 24 hours as per rules. (Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) Parul 3