2026:UHC:4320 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPMS No. 1618 of 2026 Hon’ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. 1. Mr. Tribhuwan Pandey, learned counsel holding brief of Mr. M.K. Ray, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The petitioner, herein, was the plaintiff of Original Civil Suit No. 125 of 2023, which was dismissed on an application moved by the defendants under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC. Being aggrieved with the order dismissing the suit on an application moved under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC, the petitioner preferred the appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 of the CPC before the District Judge, Udham Singh Nagar, however, the same was rejected on technical ground that the petitioner could avail the remedy under Section 96 of CPC. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned District Judge instead of dismissing the appeal on technical ground can treat the appeal under Section 96 of the CPC but straightway rejected the appeal on the ground that the appellant should avail the remedy under Section 96 of the CPC is patently erroneous in law. 4. In support of his arguments, he has placed reliance on the judgment of Orissa High Court in the case of Ajit Singh Vs. Anil Kumar Mishra (2016) 158 AIC 373 and particularly, he placed reliance to para 8 which reads as under:- “8. Thus the learned lower appellate court 2026:UHC:4320 has committed a patent error in law in holding that the appeal is not maintainable. True it is, instead of quoting Section 96 C.P.C., the petitioner has wrongly quoted Order 43 Rule 1 C.P.C. in the cause title of the appeal memo, but the appeal in essence is an appeal under Section 96 C.P.C. Law is well settled that if a court has power, only by use of a wrong nomenclature in the petition, such power cannot be taken away (Bhabatosh Sinha v Prara Sinha & others, AIR 2006 Orissa 7: 2005 (II) OLR 535). The duty of the Court is to impart justice. The substance of the petition matters, not nomenclature. The Court cannot pull down its shutters on trivial grounds.” 5. This Court is fully convinced with the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the appellate court should not go on since technicality particularly when the jurisdiction to entertain the appeal under Section 96 of the CPC lies with the same Court, therefore, the appellate court committed patent error in holding that the appeal is not maintainable and instead of rejecting the appeal, stand treat the appeal under Section 96 of the CPC. 6. In such view of the matter, Orders impugned are set-aside and the instant writ petition is disposed of by directing the learned District Judge, Udham Singh Nagar to treat the Misc. Case No. 110 of 2025 to be an appeal under Section 96 of the CPC and proceed in accordance with law. (Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) 30.05.2026 Shiv/