[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Uttarakhand High Court
Unknown vs Mohan Ram on 15 December, 2025
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
2025:UHC:11196
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition Misc. Single No.2084 of 2025
15th December, 2025
Kamal Nath ...........Petitioner
Versus
Mohan Ram .........Respondent
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Rajendra Arya, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Chandramauli Shah, Advocate for the respondent.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
This writ petition has been filed under Article
227 of the Constitution of India, whereby the petitioner-
defendant has sought a direction for quashing the
judgment and order dated 20.03.2025, passed by learned
Additional District Judge, Ranikhet, in Civil Revision No.14
of 2024, Mohan Ram Vs. Kamal Nath, whereby the said civil
revision was allowed and the order dated 13.11.2024,
passed by learned Civil Judge (J.D.), Bhikiyasain in Civil
Suit No.2 of 2019 rejecting the amendment application
Paper No.50C2 filed by the respondent-plaintiff under
Order 6 Rule 17 of C.P.C., was set aside and directed the
learned trial court to ensure the amendment to be
incorporated within seven days.
2. It is case of the petitioner-defendant that an
Original Suit No.2 of 2019, Mohan Ram Vs. Kamal Nath,
was filed by the respondent-plaintiff for permanent
injunction and recovery of possession over the property in-
question.
3. During pendency of the said original suit an
amendment application has been filed by the respondent-
plaintiff under Order 6 Rule 17 of C.P.C. i.e, Paper No.50C2
2025:UHC:11196
for incorporating an amendment in the plaint.
4. The amendment sought by the respondent-
plaintiff by filing an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of
C.P.C. seeking amendment in the plaint was as under:-
"by adding paragraph 7A after Para7 to the effect
that at the time of filing of suit, defendant raised illegal
construction over 2 Mutti Land which was shown by
yellow colour in the site plan attached with plaint and
after that defendant raised additional constructions
over 5 Mutthi land on the western side without consent
of plaintiff. Plaintiff is entitled for recovery of
possession after demolition of illegal construction
raised by the defendant."
And further consequential amendment in the
relief clause was also sought.
5. The said amendment application was rejected by
the trial court vide judgment and order dated 13.11.2024.
Feeling aggrieved the plaintiff-respondent has moved a Civil
Revision No.14 of 2024, Mohan Ram Vs. Kamal Nath.
6. The said revision petition was allowed vide
impugned judgment and order dated 20.03.2025 and the
amendment was allowed to be incorporated within seven
days in the plaint. It is feeling aggrieved by the said
judgment and order dated 20.03.2025, passed by the
revisional court the petitioner is before this Court.
7. It is informed by learned counsel for the
respondent-plaintiff that the amendment has already been
incorporated on 19.03.2025 and the additional issue has
also been framed on 24.06.2025 on the basis of the
amendment incorporated.
8. I have perused the order impugned and am of
the view that the order dated 20.03.2025, passed by
2025:UHC:11196
learned Additional District Judge, Ranikhet, in Civil
Revision No.14 of 2024, Mohan Ram Vs. Kamal Nath, does
not contain any illegality coupled with the fact that the
order has been complied with and the amendment has also
been incorporated, therefore, this Court is not inclined to
interfere in the matter. By incorporating amendment the
subsequent encroachment was challenged which is
permissible under the law.
9. Accordingly the writ petition stands dismissed.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
15.12.2025
SK
