Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(UK) 2771
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
LEELA JOSHI – Appellant
Versus
KUSUM BHATT – Respondent
SA 160 / 2024
SL. No
Date
Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures
COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS
09.10.2025
MCC No. 04 of 2025(Review Application) IA No. 05 of 2025 (Stay Application) MCC No. 06 of 2025(Modification Application) IA No. 07 of 2025 (Withdrawal Application) In SA No.160 of 2024 Hon’ble Subhash Upadhyay, J. learned Senior Counsel Mr. D.S. Pat ni, assist ed by Mr . Dharm endra Bart hwal, lear ned counsel for t he appellant s. 2. for t he Mr. Hari Mohan Bhat ia, Advocat e respondent . Withdrawal Application (IA No. 07 of 2025) 3. The second appeal was decided vide order dat ed 08.08.2025. The appellant s t her eaft er preferr ed t he SLP and t he said SLP was dism issed vide order dat ed 26.08.2025. Aft er t he dism issal of t he SLP, Review Applicat ion ( MCC No.04 of 2025) and Modificat ion Applicat ion ( MCC No. 06 of 2025) wer e filed by t he appellant s. 4. Lear ned counsel for t he appellant in t he m odificat ion applicat ion has st at ed t he following fact s: - “ 3. That wit hout advert ing t o t he corr ect ness of t he abov esaid order and for r easons ot her t han t he m erit s of t he case, t he deponent in t he int erest of j ust ice, equit y and good conscience ar e filing t he inst ant applicat ion befor e t his Hon’ble Court , beseeching, and praying t his Hon’ble Court for grant of som e reasonable t im e t o vacat e t he propert y in quest ion in view of t he peculiar fact s and circum st ances discussed below. 4. That t he pr opert y in quest ion is t he only im m ovable propert y available wit h t he deponent i.e. t he appellant no.3 and if t he deponent is evict ed wit hout affording him any reasonable t im e for t he vacat ing t he prem ises in quest ion, t hen t he deponent and his ent ire fam ily would becom e hom eless and lose t he only roof over t heir hands. 5. That t he deponent is residing in t he propert y in quest ion wit h his old ailing m ot her aged about 74 years who is suffering from heart ailm ent s, his wife who is heavily reliant upon t he deponent and t wo m inor school going children aged about 10 and 04 years. I f t he deponent is not grant ed reasonable t im e t o set t le his affairs, t he deponent and his ent ire fam ily would com e on st r eet s wit h nowhere t o go.”
6 5. Lear ned counsel for t he respondent filed a reply t o t he said m odificat ion applicat ion and st at ed t he following fact s: - “ 3. That it is subm it t ed t hat in support of t he said m odificat ion applicat ion, t he appellant s filed t he det ail affidavit of Appellant No.3 and wit hout prej udice, t he deponent is denying all t he fact s st at ed in t he said affidavit s as filed in support of Modificat ion Applicat ion. 4. That it is also subm it t ed t hat t he deponent being Sole Respondent / Plaint iff is giving her consent t hat t he m odificat ion applicat ion as filed by t he appellant s/ defendant s m ay be disposed of and 06 m ont hs’ t im e m ay be given t o appellant s/ defendant s t o vacat e t he pr oper t y in quest ion subj ect t o t he condit ion t hat t he appellant s/ defendant s during t he period of t hese 06 m ont hs shall not dam age or deface and dism ant le t he pr opert y in quest ion wit h boundary wall and gat e of t he propert y and will vacat e t he pr opert y in quest ion on or befor e t he period 06 m ont hs as consent ed by t he deponent being sole respondent / plaint iff her ein. 5. That it is also relevant t o m ent ion h
