Uttarakhand High Court
Hon'Ble Pankaj Purohit vs Smt. Deepa Mehta And Others on 16 October, 2025
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
`
Office Notes,
reports, orders or
SL. proceedings or
Date COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No directions and
Registrar's order
with Signatures
WPMS No.2193 of 2025
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
Mr. Rajesh Pandey, Advocate for the petitioner.
2. Mr. Anil K. Dabral, Additional C.S.C. with Mr. Sudhir
Nainwal, S.C. for the State/respondent no.2.
3. This writ petition has been filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India by the petitioner, whereby he has put to
challenge the order dated 08.04.2024, passed by learned
Commissioner, Kumaon Division, Nainital, in Revision No.7 of
2023-24, Smt. Suman Anand Vs. Smt. Deepa Mehta and others,
whereby the order dated 03.11.2023 (annexure no.9), passed
by learned Assistant Collector, Ist Class, Nainital, was set aside
as well as the judgment and order dated 18.03.2025, passed
by Board of Revenue, Circuit Court, Nainital in Revision No.43
of 2023-24, Smt. Deepa Mehta Vs. Smt. Suman Anand and
others, affirming the order passed by the revisional court.
4. It is case of the petitioner that he is the owner in
possession of the suit property of Revenue Suit No.22/18 of
2014-15, Smt. Suman Anand Vs. Tara Kumar Sah and others,
pending in the court of learned Assistant Collector, Ist Class,
Nainital.
5. The petitioner purchased the suit property during
pendency of this revenue suit being quite ignorant about such
suit. When she came to know about pendency of the aforesaid
revenue suit, she moved an application for impleadment as
defendant in the revenue suit by making an application under
Order 1 Rule 10 of C.P.C. on the ground that he is the
purchaser of the property during pendency of the said suit.
The said application was allowed by trial court vide judgment
and order dated 03.11.2023.
6. The order dated 03.11.2023 was challenged by the
respondent-defendant no.1-Smt. Suman Anand by filing a
Revision No.7 of 2023-24 before the learned Commissioner,
Kumaon Division, Nainital. The said revision petition was
allowed by the learned Commissioner, Kumaon Division,
Nainital. Feeling aggrieved by the said order dated 08.04.2024,
the petitioner filed a revision petition before the Board of
Revenue, Circuit Court, Revision No.43 of 2023-24, Smt.
Deepa Mehta Vs. Smt. Suman Anand and others.
7. The said revision petition filed by the petitioner was
rejected.
8. It is contention of the counsel for the petitioner that
since the petitioner is the purchaser of the land during the
pendency of the revenue suit which was filed by respondent
no.1 for declaration therefore the petitioner was the necessary
party for proper adjudication of the matter and therefore his
impleadment was rightly allowed by the trial court.
9. This Court finds substance in the submission made by
counsel for the petitioner.
10. Issue notice to respondent nos.1, 3 to 8, returnable
within six weeks.
11. Steps to be taken within 24 hours.
12. List this case on 08.12.2025.
13. In the meantime, further proceedings of Revenue Suit
No.22/18 of 2014-15, Suman Anand Vs. Tara Kumar Sah and
others, pending before learned Assistant Collector, Ist Class,
Nainital, shall remain stayed.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
16.10.2025
SK
