Uttarakhand High Court
Unknown vs Lokmani Joshi And Others on 2 September, 2025
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
2025:UHC:7756
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition (M/S) No.2362 of 2025
02nd September, 2025
Rajendra Kumar and another ...........Petitioners
Versus
Lokmani Joshi and others .............Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Piyush Garg, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Sudheer Nainwal, S.C. for the State.
Mr. Yogesh Pant, Advocate for respondent nos.1 to 12, through
video conferencing.
Mr. Anjali Bhargava, Advocate for respondent no.15.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
A Revenue Suit No.22/2704 of 2014-15, Thep
Ram Arya vs. State and Another, was instituted by the
father of the petitioners/plaintiffs in the court of learned
Assistant Collector, Ist Class, District Nainital, under
Section 229B of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition
and Land Reforms Act, 1950, for declaration and
permanent injunction.
2. In the said suit, an application under Order I
Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) was moved
by respondent nos.1 to 9 seeking to be impleaded as
respondent-defendants. This application was rejected by
the learned Assistant Collector, Ist Class, Haldwani,
Nainital, vide order dated 25.07.2016. Simultaneously,
the suit filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs was decreed by
judgment and decree dated 25.07.2016. Instead of filing
an appeal against the said judgment and decree,
respondent nos.1 to 9 filed a review application--Misc.
Case No. 240 of 2016--which was allowed vide order
2025:UHC:7756
dated 06.02.2018.
3. The order dated 06.02.2018 passed by the
learned Assistant Collector, Ist Class, Haldwani, Nainital,
was challenged by the father of the petitioners/plaintiffs
(Thep Ram) in Revenue Revision No. 57/17-18-07/2018-
2019. The said revision was allowed by the learned
Additional Commissioner, Kumaon Division, vide
judgment and order dated 20.06.2019. This judgment
and order was challenged by respondent nos.1 to 9
before the Board of Revenue in Revenue Revision No.41
of 2018-19.
4. The said revision preferred by respondent-
defendant nos.1 to 9 was dismissed by the Board of
Revenue vide judgment and order dated 28.07.2023. This
order was further challenged by respondent nos.1 to 12
by filing a writ petition before this Court bearing WPMS
No. 3020 of 2023, Lokmani Joshi vs. Thep Ram and
Others, which too was dismissed by reason of the
judgment and order dated 06.11.2023. A modification
application bearing Modification No. 2 of 2023 was
subsequently filed, which was rejected by this Court vide
judgment and order dated 06.01.2024. Thereafter, a
review petition bearing MCC No. 3 of 2024 was filed,
which was also rejected vide order dated 21.05.2025.
5. In the meantime, respondent nos.1 to 12 filed
an appeal against the judgment and order dated
25.07.2016 before the learned Commissioner, Kumaon
Division, Nainital, which was registered as First Appeal
No.104 of 2022-23 along with a delay condonation
application seeking condonation of a delay of almost
seven years. The delay was condoned and the appeal was
admitted for hearing vide order dated 09.01.2025.
2025:UHC:7756
6. The order dated 09.01.2025, whereby the delay
of almost seven years was condoned by the learned
Commissioner, Kumaon Division, Nainital, without
assigning any reasons, was challenged by the petitioners
by filing Revenue Revision No. 34 of 2025, Rajendra
Kumar and Another vs. Lokmani Joshi and Others, before
the Board of Revenue. The said revision petition was
dismissed by the Board of Revenue vide judgment and
order dated 22.07.2025. Feeling aggrieved by the orders
dated 09.01.2025 and 22.07.2025, the
petitioners/plaintiffs have approached this Court.
7. It is contended by the learned counsel for the
petitioners/plaintiffs that both the learned
Commissioner, Kumaon Division, Nainital, and the Board
of Revenue have condoned the delay without assigning
any reasons.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioners/plaintiffs
drew the attention of this Court to the judgment and
order dated 09.01.2025 passed by the learned
Commissioner, Kumaon Division, Nainital, to
substantiate the argument that no reasons were recorded
for condonation of delay.
9. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent
nos.1 to 12 submitted that the benefit of Section 14 of
the Limitation Act, 1963, ought to be extended to
respondent nos.1 to 12 as they had been pursuing the
matter before different courts during the relevant period
of seven years. Accordingly, the delay condonation
application was rightly allowed.
10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties
and having perused the impugned judgments and orders,
this Court is of the view that the orders suffer from no
2025:UHC:7756
legal infirmity. The dispute between the parties is to be
decided on its merits. Further, the reasoning recorded by
the learned Commissioner, as affirmed by the Board of
Revenue, indicates that the respondents were actively
pursuing remedies before various forums during the said
period. Thus, they were rightly granted the benefit of
Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and the delay was
justifiably condoned.
11. This Court, while exercising jurisdiction under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is primarily
concerned with procedural irregularity or jurisdictional
error. In the present case, no such material irregularity
or jurisdictional error has been committed either by the
Board of Revenue or the learned Commissioner, Kumaon
Division, Nainital. Therefore, no interference is warranted
at this stage.
12. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
02.09.2025
SK
