SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(UK) 179

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
MANAV SHARMA – Appellant
Versus
DEEPAK KUMAR – Respondent


Ofice Notes, reports, orders or

S N L o . Date proc R ee e d gi i s n t g ra s r o ’s r d o i r r d e e c r t i w on it s h and COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS

Signatures

WPMS No.65 of 2026

Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J.

Mr. Narendra Bali, learned counsel for the

petitioner.

2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of the impugned order dated 17.05.2023, passed by the learned District Judge, Haridwar, whereby the application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC was rejected, and further seeks a direction to allow the application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC

filed by the petitioner.

3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned appellate court passed the impugned order without considering the material facts and evidence available on record. He further submits that since the question regarding the status of Swami Ramesharanand was raised at a belated stage in the judgement of the learned trial court, it was only then feasible and possible for the petitioner/plaintiff to collect the required documents and file them at the appellate stage for proper adjudication of the matter. Therefore, the observations made by the learned appellate court while rejecti

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top