UKHC010123452026 2026:UHC:6086 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPMS/2142/2026 Kishan Chandra Pant --Petitioner Versus Champa Pant & Another --Respondents Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Mr. Dushyant Mainali, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Rakesh Kanwar, Additional CSC, for the State. (2) Petitioner has challenged judgments and orders rendered by Trial Court, First Appellate Court and Second Appellate Court. Petitioner had filed a suit for possession under Section 209 of Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, contending that respondent no. 1 is unauthorisedly occupying a portion of bhumidhari land belonging to petitioner. Trial Court dismissed the suit by holding that suit for possession under Section 209 of Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act cannot be maintained by a co-sharer in respect of a holding, which is yet to be partitioned by meets and bounds. Petitioner filed First Appeal, which was dismissed by Additional Commissioner, Kumaon Division, vide judgment dated 27.6.2024. Petitioner thereafter filed Second Appeal, which too was dismissed by learned Board of Revenue, vide judgment dated 12.5.2026. (3) Petitioner has challenged the judgment rendered by Board of Revenue only on the ground that since petitioner produced additional evidence at second UKHC010123452026 2026:UHC:6086 appellate stage to demonstrate that son of respondent no. 1 has sold the entire share of respondent no. 1 to a third person, therefore, respondent no. 1 did not have any share remaining in the holding, however that aspect was completely overlooked by the Board of Revenue, even though petitioner’s application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC was allowed. (4) This Court is not impressed by the said submission. Law is well settled that a party to a suit cannot develop a new case merely by filing evidence beyond the pleadings or filing additional evidence at the appellate stage. Since there was no pleading that son of respondent no. 1 sold the entire share of respondent no. 1 in the holding, therefore, a fact, which is not mentioned in the pleading, cannot be considered, even though there is evidence produced at the appellate stage by one of the parties. (5) Since all the three Courts below have recorded concurrent finding of act, therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the mater. Writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. However, it is made clear that any observation made in this order will not come in the way of petitioner seeking remedy before any appropriate forum. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 20.7.2026 Pr PRABODH KUMAR Digitally signed by PRABODH KUMAR DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3a082a00a95aff911a9559743af8f21c50602ff6eae4e61af3aeab198d462 503, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=0DC111E8D8CA66E16B940EFDF806ACCC1AB588052DF6FCA58C 67F3C91957BE53, cn=PRABODH KUMAR Date: 2026.07.20 19:28:40 +05'30' UKHC010123452026 2026:UHC:6086