AO/384/2012
2026 Latest Caselaw 1270 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

AO/384/2012 on 19 February, 2026

Author: Pankaj Purohit

Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari, Pankaj Purohit

                 Office Notes,
                reports, orders
                or proceedings
                 or directions
SL. No   Date                                               COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
                      and
                  Registrar's
                  order with
                  Signatures

                                  AO No.384 of 2012
                                  Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.

Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.

There is no representation for the appellant.

2. For the reasons stated, delay of 33 days in filing the appeal is condoned. Delay condonation application (CLMA 8062 of 2012) stands allowed accordingly.

3. Heard on the merits of appeal.

4. This appeal is preferred under Section 47 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 against the judgment and order dated 30.03.2012 passed by learned Judge, Family Court, U.S. Nagar (Rudrapur) in Case No.17 of 2005 whereby the application (146C) moved by the respondent has been allowed and the appellant was directed to file the suit before the competent court of jurisdiction.

5. From perusal of the record, it is revealed that the respondent Case No.17 of 2005 raised an objection regarding its maintainability on the ground that the Judge, Family Court, U.S. Nagar (Rudrapur) does not have the territorial jurisdiction to hear the matter. On the objection, so raised by the respondent, the Court concerned allowed the application of respondent and returned the suit to the plaintiff for its presentation before the Court of competent jurisdiction.

6. In our view there is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order which may warrant any interference in the present appeal.

7. The appeal lacks merit and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.

(Pankaj Purohit, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 19.02.2026 Rdang