Petitioners vs Rajat Kumar And Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 2638 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

Petitioners vs Rajat Kumar And Others on 21 August, 2025

Author: Pankaj Purohit

Bench: Pankaj Purohit

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
           Writ Petition (M/S) No.3684 of 2018


Bal Mukund (deceased)
                                                       --Petitioners
                               Versus

Rajat Kumar and others
                                                     --Respondents
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Arvind Kr. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Mr. Deepak Pethshali, learned counsel for the respondents.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.

Heard.

2. By means of present petition preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has put to challenge the judgment and order dated 12.10.2018 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation/Additional Collector (Administration) in Revision No.85 of 2017-18 (Rajat and others v. Bal Mukund), whereby the judgment and order dated 30.07.2018 passed by the Trial Court was rejected and the matter was remanded back for deciding the same on merits after affording proper opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence and to decide the case on the basis of its own merits.

3. It is feeling aggrieved by order dated 12.10.2018, present petition has been filed.

4. I have perused the documents/material in the writ petition as well as the impugned order dated 12.10.2018. In the opinion of this Court, there is no illegality or impropriety on the part of the revisional Court to remand the matter to the trial Court and directing it to decide on the basis of its own merits. It is one of the principles of natural justice.

5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner in support of his case relied upon the authority of Apex Court in the case of 'Ajay Mohan and others v. H.N. Rai and others' (2008) [104] RD 252. However, the Court is of the opinion that the aforesaid case has no relevance to the facts of the present case. The present case relates to mere remand of case to the trial Court while the said authority relates to the applicability of principle of res judicata. Accordingly, the said judgment loses its significance as regards to the present case.

6. Thus, no interference at all is warranted in the present matter. The writ petition fails and the same is hereby dismissed.

7. The trial Court is directed to expedite the hearing of the case as directed in the impugned order keeping in mind the old pendency of matter.

8. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.

(Pankaj Purohit, J.) 21.08.2025 Rdang