Uttarakhand High Court
28 October vs Sandeep Jakhad And Ors on 28 October, 2025
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
2025:UHC:9522
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition Misc. Single No. 268 of 2025
28 October, 2025
Rao Shahnawaj Khan -Petitioner
Versus
Sandeep Jakhad and Ors. --Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Deepak Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner
through video conferencing.
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral)
This writ petition preferred under Article 227 of
Constitution of India is directed against the order dated
21.09.2024 (Annexure No.8) passed by learned 2nd
Additional District Judge, Haridwar in Civil Revision No.
70 of 2019 Ishtyak Ali Vs. Sandeep Jakhad and others as
well as against the order dated 16.05.2019 (Annexure
No.6) passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division),
District Haridwar in Misc. Case No. 31 of 2013 Ishtyak Ali
Vs. Sandeep Jakhad and others.
2. Facts in a nutshell are that on 09.03.2011 the
respondent no.6 herein namely Ishtyak Ali through his
Power of Attorney holders Rao Masroor and Umardaraj
filed a civil suit seeking cancellation of lease against the
respondents which was registered as Original Suit No.
88 of 2011 Ishtyak Ali Vs. Sandeep Jakhad and others
as the plaintiff Ishtyak Ali was 75 years of age and
suffering from paralysis. On 10.12.2011during pendency
2025:UHC:9522
of the aforesaid civil suit the aforesaid Ishtyak
Ali/plaintiff of the civil suit passed away who was
unmarried and issueless. It needs to be mentioned that
during his lifetime on 21.04.2008 he had executed a Will
in favour of his nephew (petitioner). Consequently on
28.02.2012, the petitioner within limitation filed a
substitution application under Order 22 Rule 3 of CPC
read with Section 151 of CPC which was numbered as
paper No. 34 A-1 praying therein to become the legal
heir of the aforesaid plaintiff of the civil suit. On
12.07.2013, the petitioner filed another application
which was numbered as paper No. 4A-1 with the prayer
to dispose of the substitution application moved by him
on 28.02.2012. By the impugned order dated
16.05.2019, passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior
Division) Haridwar, the application moved by the
petitioner paper no. 4A-1 has been rejected. Challenging
the order dated 16.05.2019, the petitioner preferred a
Civil Revision No. 70 of 2019 which was also dismissed
by learned 2nd Additional District Judge, Haridwar by
his judgment and order dated 21.09.2024. It is against
both these orders the present writ petition has been
filed.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the
petitioner who appears through video conferencing and
peruse the paper available on the record. It is argued by
learned counsel for the petitioner that both the courts
below have mentioned in the impugned order about the
substitution application 34A-1 filed by the petitioner. On
22.04.2013, the substitution application moved by one
Ishrat and Razia was heard and rejected thereafter on
23.04.2013, the civil suit itself was dismissed. Therefore,
2025:UHC:9522
the substitution filed by the petitioner remain unheard
and undisposed. I find no force in the argument
advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner the
averments made by the petitioner of his being a legal
heir of the deceased Ishtyak Ali and the averments made
by him in the application under Section 151 of CPC, no
order thereupon has been passed by the trial court. In
respect of this application it is evident that this
application was said to be moved on 28.02.2012, but in
the order sheet of the trial court there is no mention of
this application. It is also clear that if this application
had been instituted before the trial court on 28.02.2012
then as to why the petitioner did not appear before the
trial court to press this application. Even thereafter on
various dates after moving the said application, paper
no. 26B application was decided on 23.04.2013. In
between neither the petitioner nor his counsel appeared
before the trial court. Moreover, at the stage of revision
the OS No. 88 of 2011 had already been dismissed.
4. In such view of the matter, the courts below
reached to the conclusion that since the petitioner was
not a party in the suit, no adverse effect has cause to
him, so far as the fact that he is the legal heir of the
deceased Ishtyak Ali, in respect of this fact the court
below has recorded the offending that he himself can
institute the legal proceeding and obtained the desired
relief. Since, no application of the petitioner was pending
on the record of the trial court nor that application was
pressed and moreover the suit itself has been dismissed
and consigned to the record room. In such view of the
matter, the trial court as well as the revisional court
rejected to grant any relief on the application moved
2025:UHC:9522
under Section 151 of CPC.
5. Accordingly, the trial courts as well as the
revisional court were justified in rejecting the application
moved by the petitioner, I find no illegality or irregularity
in the aforesaid orders, the petition fails and the same is
dismissed at the threshold itself.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
28.10.2025
Nahid
