WPMS/995/2025
2025 Latest Caselaw 3598 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

WPMS/995/2025 on 8 April, 2025

Author: Ravindra Maithani

Bench: Ravindra Maithani

                    Office N ot e s,
             Date      r e por t s,
                      or de r s or                      COURT'S OR JUD GE'S ORD ERS
                    pr oce e dings
                    or dir e ct ions
                           a nd
                     Re gist r a r 's
                     or de r w it h
                     Sign a t u r e s
D- I I / 4                              WPMS No.995 of 2025
                                        With
                                        Stay Application (IA) No.1 of 2025
                                        Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J.

Mr. M.S. Bhandari and Mr. M.K. Ray, Advocates for the petitioners. Mr. Vikas Kumar Guglani, Advocate for the respondent/Caveator. Heard.

Admit.

Mr. Vikas Kumar Guglani, Advocate takes notice on behalf of the respondent. Counter affidavit may be filed within four weeks.

Two weeks thereafter, rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed. List on 02.06.2025.

Heard on Stay Application (IA) No.1 of 2025.

The challenge in this petition is made to the judgment and order dated 20.02.2025, passed in Civil Revision No.60 of 2024, Kanhaiya Lal vs. Smt. Gurmeet Kaur and others, by the court of District Judge, Udham Singh Nagar, by which, an amendment application filed by the respondents has been allowed. In fact, the respondents had filed Civil Suit No.74 of 2017, Kanhaiya Lal vs. Smt. Gurmeet Kaur and others. By means of the amendment, respondents had proposed to introduce one more paragraph in the plaint to reveal that the respondent's name was Suresh Chandra, but Shyam Lal adopted him and give him the name, which is Kanhaiya. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, in fact, the respondents had filed a suit in the name of Kanhaiya, whereas his name is Suresh Chand. Objections were taken by the petitioners, therefore, to circumscribe it proposed amendment has been suggested. Learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the petitioner also impersonated Kanhaiya Lal and executed a deed, of which, FIR was lodged against him.

Having considered, till the next date of listing, the effect and operation of the impugned order shall remain in abeyance.

(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 08.04.2025 Sanjay