2025:UHC:8143 1 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition Misc. Single No. 2306 of 2025 12 September, 2025 Neena Alias Priyanka Tulsiyani --Petitioner Versus Rama Kumari & others --Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. Vishesh Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. This writ petition preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the judgment and order dated 09.05.2025 passed by learned Prescribed Authority/Civil Judge (JD) Mussorrie, District Dehradun in P.A. Case No.15 of 2023, Anil Chug & others vs. Fancy General Store & others. 2. Heard. 3. An application (Paper No. 153A) was moved on behalf of the petitioner/defendant no.2. In response to that application, the respondents filed their objections (Paper No. 154A). It was stated by the petitioner/defendant no.2 that respondent no.1and predecessor of respondent nos.2 & 3 had moved an application for the release of the shop in question. In that application, respondent no.1/applicants had suppressed facts from the beginning. She was fully aware that defendant no.1 Hari Ram had passed away and also had complete knowledge about his legal representatives. Therefore, it was necessary to bring these important facts to the notice of the Court so that the case could be decided on its merits. The applicant concealed the facts regarding the source of income from the very beginning. The respondent no.1/applicant has also acquired several properties, for which no source of income was disclosed. This establishes that incomplete and 2025:UHC:8143 2 misleading facts were presented before the Court. Hence, an application for the cross-examination of respondent no.1 was filed. In response, objections were filed by the defendant, asserting that the application was filed with the intention to delay the proceedings and, therefore, was liable to be dismissed with costs. 4. Upon perusal of the record, it appears that the respondent no.1/applicant and predecessor of respondent nos.2 & 3 moved an application for the release of the property under Section 21(1)(a) of the Uttar Pradesh Act No. 13 of 1972. In the present case, the date of hearing was fixed after the completion of evidence from both the plaintiffs and the defendants. The application under Section 21(1)(a) was moved on the basis of bona fide need, and an affidavit had already been submitted by the landlord affirming the bona fide requirement of the property. 5. The Court recorded a finding that no special grounds were mentioned in the application moved by defendant no.2 that would warrant granting a further opportunity for cross-examining respondent no.1. Accordingly, the application was rejected. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Considering the impugned order passed by the trial court, this Court is of the view that no ground for interference is made out. The application was filed merely to prolong the proceedings. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is dismissed at the threshold. 7. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of accordingly. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 12.09.2025 AK