Uttarakhand High Court
Shahjad Alias Sonu And Others vs Shahjad Ali on 11 November, 2025
Author: Rakesh Thapliyal
Bench: Rakesh Thapliyal
2025:UHC:9751
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
Civil Revision No. 112 of 2025
Shahjad Alias Sonu and Others. ......... Revisionist.
Versus
Shahjad Ali. ........Respondent.
Present:
Mr. Arvind Vashistha, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. Devanshi Joshi, learned counsel for the
revisionists.
Mr. Siddhartha Singh and Mr. D.S. Negi, learned counsel for the caveator.
Mr. Aditya Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the respondent in CLR No. 38 of 2024.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Thapliyal, J.
1. The instant revision has been preferred against the judgment
and decree passed by the First Additional District Judge,
Haridwar, in Small Cause Court Suit No. 17 of 2018 'Shahjad Ali
vs. Naseem Ahmed and Others' by the present revisionist on the
ground that the judgment and order passed by the SCC court is
infact against the evidence on record and is illegal since the
plaintiff of the suit are neither the owner nor the landlord of the
property in question.
2. In support of his argument, learned counsel for the
revisionist argued that one another SCC Suit No. 38 of 2018 was
filed by the respondent/plaintiff titled as 'Shahjad Ali vs.
Dilshaad and Others' for ejectment and arrear of rent; however
the said SCC Suit was dismissed by the Second Additional District
Judge, Roorkee, by judgment and order dated 12.04.2024 on the
ground that neither the plaintiff is the landlord nor the owner.
3. On the other side, learned counsel Mr. Siddhartha Singh
argued that the respondent/plaintiff become the owner by way of
2025:UHC:9751
a compromise decree dated 21.12.2012 passed in O.S. No. 123 of
2012 'Fayyaz and Others vs. Aadesh Kumar and Others' passed
by the Civil Judge, S.D., Roorkee. In addition to this, Mr.
Siddhartha Singh also argued that several rent receipts itself
reveals that the respondent/plaintiff is the landlord.
4. In reference to the argument of Mr. Siddhartha Singh Mr.
Arvind Vashistha, learned senior counsel submits that the
compromise decree was obtained by playing fraud in a collusive
suit filed by the legal heirs of Abdul Gaffur against the three
persons namely Aadesh, Anil and Pradeep S/o Ram Ratan R/o 24
Dwarika Puri, Muzaffarnagar.
5. This is an admitted case of both the parties that the property
in question was earlier owned by one Brij Mohan Lal Gupta, who
died in the year of 1999. During the life of Brij Mohan Lal Gupta a
suit bearing O.S. No. 341 of 1989 was filed by one Abdul Gaffur
against Brij Mohan Lal claiming adverse possession over the
property owned by Brij Mohan Lal Gupta. After two years
another suit bearing O.S. No. 211 of 1990 was also filed by Abdul
Gaffur against Afzal for seeking declaration and injunction. O.S.
No. 341 of 1989, which was pending in the court of Civil Judge,
S.D., Roorkee, was not pressed by the plaintiff on the ground that
a compromise entered between the parties has been filed in O.S.
No. 211 of 1990. With this averment an application was moved by
the plaintiff in O.S. No. 341 of 1989 numbered as paper no. 241 d
and the same was allowed and O.S. No. 341 of 1989 was dismissed
as not pressed without touching the merit of the case. Mr.
Siddhartha Singh also informed to this court that another suit
bearing O.S. No. 211 of 1990 in which the compromise was filed
was subsequently also not pressed.
6. Thereafter, another suit bearing O.S. No. 123 of 2012 was
filed after the death of Abdul Gaffur, who died in the year 2008,
2025:UHC:9751
by the legal heirs of Abdul Gaffur against the three persons namely
Aadesh, Anil and Pradeep S/o Ram Ratan R/o 24 Dwarika Puri,
Muzaffarnagar, for declaration and this suit was decreed on the
basis of the compromise entered in between the legal heirs of
Abdul Gaffur, who were the plaintiff in O.S. No. 123 of 2012 and
the defendants, who according to Mr. Siddhartha Singh are the
successor of Brij Mohan Lal Gupta by virtue of a Will.
7. At this stage Mr. Arvind Vashistha submits that the Will
was never been placed in any of the proceeding.
8. To examine, whether O.S. No. 123 of 2012 was a collusive
suit and furthermore whether the compromise decree dated
21.12.2012 was obtained by playing fraud and further whether the
aforesaid three persons Aadesh Kumar and others are the legal
heirs of Brij Mohan Lal Gupta or not and if they are legal heirs on
what basis it is necessary to examine the record.
9. To examine all these aspects, this court is of the view, let the
record of O.S. No. 341 of 1989 'Abdul Gaffur vs. Brij Mohan Lal
Gupta', record of O.S. No. 211 of 1990 'Afzal Ahmed vs. Abdul
Gaffur' and the record of O.S. No. 123 of 2012 be summoned from
the concerned record room by the Registry. Registry is directed to
send requisition.
10. In addition to this, let the record of SCC Suit No. 17 of 2018
decided on 27.09.2025 be also summoned.
11. Put up this matter on 19.11.2025 on top of board.
(Rakesh Thapliyal, J.)
11.11.2025
PR
