Petitioners vs Smt. Kamlesh Devi And Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 6568 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

Petitioners vs Smt. Kamlesh Devi And Others on 24 December, 2025

Author: Pankaj Purohit

Bench: Pankaj Purohit

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
            Writ Petition (M/S) No.3621 of 2025


Shamim Ahmed and others
                                              ......Petitioners
                            Versus

Smt. Kamlesh Devi and others
                                          .........Respondents

Mr. Siddhartha Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners.

Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral)

By means of this writ petition, petitioners have sought quashing of order dated 03.12.2025 passed by First Additional District Judge, Haridwar in Civil Appeal No.27 of 2024 (Smt. Kamlesh Devi v. Shahzaad and another) whereby the application filed by petitioners at the appellate stage under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC has been rejected.

2. It is the case of petitioners that Original Suit No.125 of 2020 was filed by respondent no.2-Shahzaad against respondent nos.1 and 3 to declare the sale deed dated 03.11.2007 as null and void mainly on the ground that when the sale deed in question was executed, plaintiff i.e. respondent no.2- Shahzaad S/o late Shamshuddin was 3-4 years old and the land was sold without any permission from any court of law and when he attained majority, he filed the suit seeking aforesasid prayer.

3. The said suit was decreed by judgment and order dated 18.04.2024. Feeling aggrieved, Civil Appeal No.27 of 2024, Smt. Kamlesh v. Shahzaad was preferred before the First Additional District Judge, Haridwar. According to the petitioner, the respondent no.3, real

brother of respondent no.2 Shahzaad, sought permission to sell the land; after the permission having been granted, the land was purchased by one Ravindra Walia vide registered sale deeds dated 04.02.2009 and 07.02.2009. Petitioners subsequently purchased the land involved in suit from Ravindra Walia vide registered sale deeds on 23.08.2010 and 13.12.2011.

4. The entire land transaction was done by respondent nos.2 and 3 having full knowledge of the fact that the land has already been sold by respondent no.3 to respondent no.1-Kamlesh Devi. The petitioners having purchased the aforesaid land in question moved the aforesaid application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC in the First Appellate stage to implead them as party respondents. The said application was rejected primarily by learned First Appellate Court on the ground that the petitioners may bring and maintain a separate suit seeking redressal of their grievance.

5. I have gone through the reasoning assigned by the First Appellate Court while rejecting the application of petitioners under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC. The reasons appear to be sound and perfect. It will create complexity in the already complex appeal. Therefore, no interference is warranted at this stage.

6. The writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed at the threshold itself.

7. Petitioners, however, would be at liberty to avail the remedy available to them under the law.

(Pankaj Purohit, J.) 24.12.2025 Rdang