Uttarakhand High Court
Unknown vs Abhishek Bhandari And Others on 7 October, 2025
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition (M/S) No.2525 of 2018
Smt. Prem Devi @ Prema Rawat
--Petitioner
Versus
Abhishek Bhandari and others
--Respondents
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Lokendra Dobhal, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. Sandeep Kothari, learned counsel for respondent nos.1 and 2.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
By means of this petition, petitioner has
prayed to issue a writ of certiorari to quash the
judgment and order dated 26.06.2015 passed by learned
Additional Commissioner, Garhwal Division, Pauri
Camp, Dehradun (Annexure No.9) and judgment and
order dated 18.04.2018 passed by Board of Revenue,
Uttarakhand, Dehradun (Annexure No.1).
2. Facts in nutshell are petitioner filed a suit
under Section 229-B of the Uttarakhand (U.P. Zamindari
Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950) (Adaptation and
Modification Order 2001) in the Court of Assistant
Collector, First Class/Pargana Adhikari, Dehradun.
During the course of pendency, respondent nos.1 and 2
(defendant nos.4 and 5) were arrayed. Despite being
given time, respondent nos.1 and 2 did not file their
written statement and on 08.05.2012, the Assistant
Collector, Dehradun closed the opportunity of
respondent nos.1 and 2 to file their written statement.
On 30.05.2012, application seeking recall of order dated
8.5.2012 was moved which was rejected on 31.5.2013.
Thereafter, on 12.06.2013, another application was
moved by respondent nos.1 and 2 to recall the orders
dated 8.5.2012 and 31.05.2013, which was again
refused on 15.07.2013 by the Court of Assistant
Collector, Dehradun. Challenging the orders dated
15.7.2013, 31.5.2013 and 8.5.2012, Revenue Revision
No.60 of 2012-13 was filed before the Additional
Commissioner, Garhwal Division, Pauri Camp. The said
authority by his judgment dated 26.06.2015, allowed the
revision, accepted the written statement dated 30.5.2012
and set aside the impugned orders with a direction to
the court below to decide the case on merits.
Challenging the order dated 26.6.2015, petitioner filed
revision before the Board of Revenue, Uttarakhand
which dismissed the same by judgment dated
18.04.2018. Challenging these orders, present petition
has been filed.
3. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of
respondent nos.1 and 2 in which denying the averments
made in the writ petition, the impugned orders passed
by the authorities below have been supported. It is
stated that the copy of plaint and other documents were
not supplied to the answering respondents due to which
the written statement could not be filed immediately.
4. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties
and carefully perused the impugned judgments and
orders.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued
that the Additional Commissioner and Board of Revenue
have erred in law in permitting the respondent nos.1 and
2 to file their written statements on record.
6. On the other hand, learned Counsel for
respondent nos.1 and 2 has supported the impugned
orders.
7. The application to implead the respondent
nos.1 and 2 was moved on 24.05.2010 which was
allowed on 5.8.2011, pursuant to which they appeared
in the Court on 17.11.2011. Thereafter for few dates,
judicial work was suspended. The next date fixed was
8.5.2012, however, on that very date, the opportunity to
file written statement by respondent nos.1 and 2 was
closed. There was no evidence/summon available on
record to prove that after being impleaded as
respondents, any notice was given to them. They could
not file the written statement due to presiding officers
being busy in administrative work and advocates were
on strike. Learned Revisional Court noticed this error
and corrected the same by way of impugned order which
was even affirmed by the Board of Revenue.
8. On this very issue, the direct authority of the
Apex Court is in the case of 'Bharat Kalra v. Raj Kishan
Chabra' 2022 Live Law (SC) 465 wherein it was held that
time limit for filing of the written statement under Order
VIII Rule 1 of CPC is not mandatory but directory in
nature in view of judgment of the Apex Court reported in
'Kailash v Nankhu and others' reported in (2005) 4 SCC
480. It was also held that the delay, if any, could well be
compensated with costs but denying the benefit of filing
of the written statement is unreasonable.
9. All said, there is hardly any ground of
interference. The petition fails and the same is
dismissed. The judgments and orders, under challenge,
are hereby affirmed. The trial Court is directed to
proceed ahead with the trial expeditiously.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
07.10.2025
Rdang
