3 November vs Zeenat Zahan And Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 5198 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

3 November vs Zeenat Zahan And Others on 3 November, 2025

Author: Pankaj Purohit

Bench: Pankaj Purohit

                                                       2025:UHC:9674



HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
               Civil Revision No. 118 of 2025
                       03 November, 2025
Kumari Sharish Ali and Another                       --Revisionists
                        Versus

Zeenat Zahan and Others                             --Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
      Mr. Aditya Purohit, learned counsel for revisionists-
      plaintiffs.
      Mr. Ravi Bisht, learned counsel for respondent No.2.
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral)

By means of the present civil revision, revisionists-plaintiffs have put to challenge the judgment and order dated 30.07.2025, passed by learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Ramnagar, District Nainital in Original Civil Suit No.26 of 2021 Kumari Shaurish Ali and Others Vs. Zeenat Zahan and Others, whereby, the application filed by respondent-defendant No.1 under Order 8 Rule 1 read with Section 151 CPC was allowed, subject to payment of cost of Rs.2,000/- and the written statement filed by the respondent- defendant No.1 was directed to be taken on record.

2. It is contended by learned counsel for the revisionists-plaintiffs that Original Civil Suit No.26 of 2021 Kumari Shaurish Ali and Others Vs. Zeenat Zahan and Others, was instituted in the Court of learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Ramnagar, District Nainital, for mandatory injunction.

3. It is further contended by him that the respondent-defendant No.1 Zeenat Zahan appeared in the Suit and filed her written statement after a delay of

2025:UHC:9674 more than four years along with an application under Order 8 Rule 1 read with Section 151 CPC stating therein that due to the reason that there were talks of compromise between the parties, written statement could not have been filed in time and a request is made to condone the delay in filing written statement and the same may be taken on record. The said application was opposed by the revisionists-plaintiffs by filing objection stating therein that the written statement has not been filed by respondent-defendant No.1 deliberately on time and the false excuse is taken in the garb of talks of compromise between the parties. The learned Trial Court has allowed the said application subject to payment of cost of Rs.2,000/- to be paid to the revisionists-plaintiffs. Thus, feeling aggrieved, revisionists-plaintiffs are before this Court.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the revisionists-plaintiffs and perused the impugned order very carefully. This Court does not find any illegality in the impugned order dated 30.07.2025, whereby, the application filed by the respondent-defendant No.1 under Order 8 Rule 1 read with Section 151 CPC was allowed subject to payment of cost of Rs.2,000/-. Thus, no interference is warranted in the present civil revision.

5. Accordingly, the present civil revision is dismissed in-limine.

6. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.

(Pankaj Purohit, J.) 03.11.2025 PN