AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J
Petitioners are challenging the order dated 04.11.2019 passed by Ist Additional District Judge, Nainital in Eviction Appeal No. 05 of 2016. By the
said order, petitioners’ application seeking leave to amend the memo of appeal was rejected on the ground that new grounds, which are sought to
be added, are already there in para no. GG of the memo of appeal. Learned appellate Court has referred to the order passed by Coordinate Bench of
this Court in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 919 of 2007.
The application seeking leave to amend is on record as Annexure-3 to the writ petition. By adding two new grounds in memo of appeal, petitioners
want to highlight that disputed question of title cannot be decided in summary proceedings before the Prescribed Authority or the Appellate Authority.
Perusal of memo of appeal reveals that similar contention has been raised by the petitioners in ground no. GG as well.
Even otherwise also, it is settled position in law that cases in which question of title is involved, cannot be decided in summary proceedings under
U.P. Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1972. However, for applicability of this principle, petitioners will have to assert their
title based on cogent evidence and if they are able to satisfy learned Court below that prima facie they have title over the land in question, only then,
the contention raised by them in ground no. GG of memo of appeal would be relevant.
In such view of the matter, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by Ist Additional District Judge, Nainital, which is
impugned herein.
Accordingly, writ petition fails and is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Since the matter is pending since long, therefore, learned Ist Additional District Judge is directed to decide the appeal, as early as possible, but, not
later than nine months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.