2026:UHC:169 1 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition Misc. Single No. 35 of 2026 06 January, 2026 Pushpa George --Petitioner Versus The Good Shepherd Agriculture Society and Another --Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. Siddhartha Singh and Mr. D.S. Negi, learned coun- sel for petitioner-defendant No.1. Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (through V.C.) This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by petitioner- defendant No.1 challenging the judgment and order dated 12.12.2025 passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Tanakpur, Champawat, in Original Suit No.9 of 2023 The Good Shepherd Agricultural Society Vs. Smt. Pushpa George and Another, whereby, application/paper No.54C2 under Order VI Rule 17 read with Order VIII Rule 6-A CPC moved by petitioner-defendant No.1 was rejected; as well as the judgment and order dated 24.12.2025 passed by learned District Judge, Champawat, in Civil Revision No.09 of 2025 Smt. Pushpa George Vs. The Good Shepherd Agricultural Society and Another, whereby, the Civil Revision filed by petitioner-defendant No.1 was dismissed and further prayed to allow the amendment application filed by petitioner-defendant No.1. 2. Learned counsel for petitioner-defendant No.1 submits that respondent No.1-plaintiff has filed an Original Suit No.9 of 2023 for mandatory injunction, mense profit. Petitioner-defendant No.1 filed written statement denying the plaint allegations. He thereafter 2026:UHC:169 2 filed an amendment application for counter-claim seeking declaration in regard to disputed property on the basis of adverse possession and restraining the respondent No.1- plaintiff from interfering in the peaceful possession of petitioner. 3. He further submits that respondent No.1- plaintiff had filed objection against the amendment application challenging the maintainability; suit has already proceeded and affidavit of In-chief of plaintiff has been filed; petitioner-defendant No.1 filed written statement on 19.05.2023 and issues were framed on 19.10.2024. Learned Trial Court vide impugned judgment and order dated 12.12.2025 rejected the amendment application filed by petitioner-defendant No.1 for incorporating counter-claim in written statement. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner-defendant No.1 filed Civil Revision No.09 of 2025 Smt. Pushpa George Vs. The Good Shepherd Agricultural Society and Another, which too was dismissed. 4. It is contended by learned counsel for petitioner-defendant No.1 that both the learned Courts below have not considered the fact that contesting defendant No.1 has a legal right of set off and/or to seek counter-claim against the respondent No.1-plaintiff, with regard to property in question, within pecuniary jurisdiction of learned Trial Court. Impugned judgments and orders passed by learned Courts Below are illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in the eyes of law, thus, the impugned orders are liable to set aside. He also contends that the petitioner-defendant No.1 has no other efficacious remedy except to invoke the supervisory jurisdiction by invoking the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2026:UHC:169 3 5. Having heard the learned counsel for petitioner and having gone through the impugned judgments and orders as well as the entire material available on record, this Court thinks that there is no illegality in the impugned judgments and orders passed by both the learned Courts. Learned Trial Court as well as learned Revisional Court has rightly rejected the amendment application moved by petitioner-defendant No.1 for incorporating counter-claim, which was highly belated and was moved after framing of the issues and examination chief of the respondent no. 01-plaintiff was over. Petitioner-defendant No.1 is not in a disadvantageous position by rejection of his amendment application order, therefore, this Court is of the view that no interference is required exercising its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. However, petitioner-defendant No.1 can maintain a fresh suit upon the said fact. 6. Accordingly, the present writ petition fails and is dismissed in-limine. 7. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 06.01.2026 PN