Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Uttarakhand · body

2026 DAILYLAW 5245 (UTT)

MUNNU GIRI v. MAHAVEER SINGH

C528/955/2025 · 2026-02-11

Alok Mahra

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2026:UHC:3334 SL. No. Dat e Office Not es, r epor t s, or der s or pr oceedin gs or dir ect ion s an d Regist r ar ’s or der w it h Sign at u r es COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS C-5 2 8 No.9 5 5 of 2 0 2 5 Hon ’ble Alok Mah r a, J. Mr. M.S. Bhandari, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. Mr. Lokendra Dobhal, learned counsel for respondent. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the present Modification Application (MCRC No. 4 of 2026) has been filed seeking modification of the judgment and order dated 11.02.2026, to the limited extent of directing the learned trial court to defer execution of the impugned judgment and order dated 19.12.2024, passed in Criminal Revision No. 24 of 2024 by the learned Sessions Judge, Tehri Garhwal, whereby interim compensation has been awarded under Section 143-A of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, during the pendency of the trial. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent vehemently opposes the modification application, contending that the applicant has an efficacious and alternative statutory remedy available before the competent appellate/revisional forum. It is further submitted that this Court, vide judgment and order dated 11.02.2026, has already directed the learned trial court to conclude the trial expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months, in consonance with the mandate of Section 143 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, which provides for summary and time-bound disposal of cases under the Act. 2026:UHC:3334 5. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the present application, this Court finds that the relief sought exceeds the limited scope of a modification application and, in effect, seeks a substantive direction for stay of execution of an order passed by a competent court. Such relief cannot be granted under the guise of modification, especially when an efficacious alternative remedy is available to the applicant under law. 6. Accordingly, the modification application, being misconceived and devoid of merit, is dismissed. 7. No order as to costs. ( Alok Mah r a, J.) 02.05.2026 Mamta