Uttarakhand High Court
SA/137/2022 on 23 April, 2025
Author: Vivek Bharti Sharma
Bench: Vivek Bharti Sharma
Office Not es, report s,
orders or pr oceedings
SL.
No.
Dat e or direct ions and COURT'S OR JUD GE'S ORD ERS
Regist rar 's or der w it h
Signat ures
S.A. NO. 137 of 2022
Hon'ble Vivek Bharti Sharma, J.
Mr. Siddhartha Sah, learned counsel for
the appellants.
2. Mr. Vinodanand Barthwal, learned counsel
for respondent.
3. A Recall Application (IA 3 of 2024) along
with Delay Condonation Application (IA 2 of
2024) is filed by the respondent to recall the
order dated 19.12.2023 passed by the
Coordinate Bench of this Court.
5. Not objected to by learned counsel for the
appellants.
6. Cause shown is found sufficient. Delay is
condoned. The delay condonation application is
allowed.
7. Heard on Recall Application (IA 3 of
2025).
8. Learned counsel for the respondent would
submit that on 19.12.2023, when the appeal was
listed for hearing, the counsel for respondent
suddenly fell ill and could not contact anyone
for appearance in the present case, therefore, he
has requested to recall the order dated
19.12.2023.
9. The request is not opposed by learned
counsel for the appellant.
10. For the reasons stated as above, the Recall
Application is allowed. Order dated 19.12.2023
is hereby recalled.
11. Heard on admission of the Second Appeal.
12. This appeal is filed against the judgment
and decree dated 05.07.2019 passed by learned
Civil Judge (Junior Division), Pauri Garhwal in
Civil Suit No. 10 of 2013 as well as the
judgment and decree dated 04.08.2022 passed
by learned District Judge, Pauri Garhwal in
Civil Appeal No. 14 of 2019, whereby the Civil
Appeal of the appellant/defendant has been
dismissed.
13. Learned counsel for the appellant would
submit that the impugned judgment and decree
is unsustainable in the eyes of law as the same
has been passed against the facts and evidence
on record; that, respondent/plaintiff has filed the
suit without any right as the respondent
respondent/plaintiff is not the owner of the
property in question.
14. Learned counsel for the respondent has
supported the impugned judgment and decree,
however, he seeks time to file reply/objection to
the memo of appeal.
15. In view of the above, this Court is of the
opinion that the matter needs deliberation.
16. Admit the second appeal on the following
substantial questions of law:
(a) Whether the Civil Court lacked
jurisdiction to entertain and decide the
suit for eviction and possession inasmuch
as only a small causes court had the
jurisdiction to entertain a suit for eviction
of lessee?
(b) Whether the first appellate court's
judgment suffers from non compliance of
provisions of Order 41 Rule 31 CPC since
the first appellate court did not frame any
independent points for determination and
only dealt with the issues decided by the
trial court & thus the first appellate
court's judgment is in the teeth of the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of H. Siddiqui Vs. A.Ramalingam
reported in (2011) 4 SCC 240?
(c) Whether the finding of first appellate
court that the disputed property is
recorded in Khata Khatauni in the name of
Methodist Church in India is perverse
because the property is recorded in Khata
Khatuani in the name of Methojis
Kopadmill Mission Chopra?
17. List this case on 10.07.2025.
18. Meanwhile, effect and operation of the
impugned judgment and decree dated
05.07.2019 passed by learned Civil Judge
(Junior Division), Pauri Garhwal in Civil Suit
No. 10 of 2013 as well as the judgment and
decree dated 04.08.2022 passed by learned
District Judge, Pauri Garhwal in Civil Appeal
No. 14 of 2019 shall remain stayed until further
order.
(Vivek Bharti Sharma, J.)
23.04.2025
Mamta
