SPA/19/2022
2022 Latest Caselaw 310 UK

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
                               AT NAINITAL
                        SRI JUSTICE S.K. MISHRA, A.C.J.

                                       AND

                            SRI JUSTICE N.S. DHANIK, J.

SPECIAL APPEAL NO. 19 OF 2022

21ST FEBRUARY, 2022

BETWEEN:

Neelam (Now Neelam Paliwal) .....Appellant.

And

Santosh & others                                           ....Respondents.

Counsel for the Appellant               :      Mr. K.P. Upadhyaya, learned
                                               Senior Counsel assisted by Mr.
                                               Hemant Pant, learned counsel.

Counsel for the Respondent No.1         :      Mr. Sandeep Kothari.

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 to 4 :        Mr. Pradeep Joshi, learned
                                               Additional Chief Standing
                                               Counsel.

Upon hearing the learned Counsel, the Court made the following

JUDGMENT :(per Sri S.K. Mishra, A.C.J.)

Having heard Mr. K.P. Upadhyaya, the learned

Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant, Mr. Sandeep

Kothari, the learned counsel for respondent No.1, and Mr.

Pradeep Joshi, the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel

for the State, we are of the opinion that in an intra-court

appeal, the appellant cannot annex the document which was

not placed before the learned Single Judge. If at all, any

additional document are to be placed, then it should be

placed with an appropriate prayer, and annexed with an

affidavit stating the reasons as to why such document could

not be placed before the learned Single Judge.

2. We deprecate this practice of annexing documents

to the intra-court appeals which were not placed before the

learned Single Judge in the original writ petition. Henceforth,

we further direct that in all Special Appeals or inter-court

appeals, the Stamp Reporter shall compare the original

records, and if it is found that additional documents are

annexed to the intra-court appeal, which were not placed

before the learned Single Judge, then appropriate objections

shall be raised in the stamp report.

3. In this case, the entire case of the present

appellant-respondent No.4 before the learned Single Judge

was that, she was granted seniority retrospectively from

08.11.2002, and to buttress her contention, she relies upon

Annexure No.2 to the Special Appeal, which is the direction

given by the Director General of Police, Uttarakhand,

Dehradun on 23.07.2014. But that document was never

placed before the learned Single Judge. Therefore, we are not

inclined to interfere with the judgment of the learned Single

Judge basing on that document.

4. Hence, the special appeal is dismissed. But, the

appellant is at liberty to file appropriate application for review

before the learned Single Judge, if so advised.

5. Urgency certified copy of this order be issued to the

parties on proper application.

(S.K. MISHRA, A.C.J.)

(N.S. DHANIK, J.) Dated: 21ST February, 2022 NISHANT