Uttarakhand High Court
Additional District Judge vs Pooran Singh And Another" on 2 March, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
SRI JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI, C.J.
2ND MARCH, 2023
WRIT PETITION (M/S) NO. 2156 OF 2015
Between:
Pooran Chand Nautiyal ...............Petitioner.
and
Sohan Lal and another. ....Respondents
Counsel for the petitioner. : Mr. Bhupesh Kandpal.
Counsel for respondent No.1 : Mr. Neeraj Garg.
Counsel for respondent No.2 : Mr. Rahul Consul.
Upon hearing the learned Counsel, the Court made the
following
JUDGMENT :
The present petition, under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, has been preferred by the petitioner to
assail the order dated 07.08.2015 passed by the learned
Additional District Judge, Dehradun in Civil Revision No. 41
of 2013 arising out of O.S. No. 86 / 2012, titled "Sohan Lal
vs. Pooran Singh and another".
2. The respondent is plaintiff in the aforesaid Suit for
injunction preferred against the petitioner / defendant. The
petitioner sought to amend the Suit by moving an
Application under Order VI Rule 17 of C.P.C. That
Application was rejected by the Trial Court. However, the
Revision preferred by the respondent / plaintiff was allowed
with passing of the impugned order dated 07.08.2015.
Against the said order, this petition has been preferred.
3. The case of the petitioner is that by allowing the
amendment, the admission made by the respondent/plaintiff
in the plaint stands withdrawn.
4. Learned counsel submits that earlier when the
Suit was preferred, the respondent / plaintiff had described
the petitioner as the owner of the property, over which the
petitioner has raised construction. Subsequently, it was
sought to be incorporated by way of amendment that the
property in question is owned by five persons jointly. This,
according to the petitioner, tantamounts to withdrawal of
admission qua ownership of the property over which the
petitioner has raised construction.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the injunctive relief was premised on the easementry rights
claimed by the respondent / plaintiff. The
respondent/plaintiff has no right, title or interest in the
property of the petitioner, and none is claimed.
6. First and foremost, in my view, the present
petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India cannot
be entertained merely to correct errors of facts or law. The
learned Additional District Judge exercised the jurisdiction
vested in him while dealing with the Revision preferred by
the respondent / plaintiff. It cannot be said that he has
either failed to exercise jurisdiction, or exceeded its
jurisdiction. It cannot be said that the passing of the
impugned order has resulted in complete failure of justice.
Mere error in the exercise of jurisdiction, is not for this Court
to correct in these proceedings. Even otherwise, I am not
satisfied that by the aforesaid amendment, any admission
has been withdrawn by the respondent qua the petitioner.
Merely because the respondent / plaintiff has sought to
make an amendment with regard to his claim of ownership
of the property of the petitioner, the same is neither here
nor there, as it does not have any bearing on the rights of
the petitioner to the property.
7. Since the respondent / plaintiff is a stranger to
the property of the petitioner, his claim that the property is
owned by one person, or many others, is neither here, nor
there, so far as the title of the petitioner is concerned.
8. In these circumstances, I do not find any merit in
this petition. The same is, accordingly, dismissed.
9. Since the Suit has been pending since 2012, I
direct the Trial Court to expedite the disposal of the Suit.
The same should be disposed of within the next one year.
Neither party shall seek, nor be granted any undue
adjournment by the Trial Court.
________________
VIPIN SANGHI, C.J.
Dt: 2nd March, 2023
Rathour
