High CourtsSingle Bench(2023) 03 UK CK 0011

Bati @Veerwati vs Nigam

Uttarakhand High Court · Decided on 2 March 2023

HON’BLE JUDGES
Vipin Sanghi, CJ
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition (M/S) No. 290 Of 2023

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

7 paragraphs · 349 words

Vipin Sanghi, CJ

1.

This case is listed today on the urgency being made out by the petitioner.

2.

The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to assail the order dated 26.08.2021, passed by the Civil Judge (J.D.), Haridwar in O.S. No.76 of 2021, “Smt. Bati @Veerwati vs. Smt. Nigam”, and the order dated 25.01.2023, passed by the learned Ist Additional District Judge, Haridwar in Misc. Civil Appeal No.28 of 2021, “Smt. Bati @Veerwati vs. Smt. Nigam”.

3.

The petitioner has preferred the aforesaid Suit against the respondents, who is her daughter. The said Suit has been filed by the petitioner to seek cancellation of Gift Deed dated 22.01.2021, executed by her in favour of the respondent- defendant. During pendency of the Suit, she sought interim injunction against the respondent to restrain her from creating any third party interest over the suit property. That injunction application was rejected by the Trial Court vide order dated 26.08.2021. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure, being Misc. Appeal No.28 of 2021, which too has been dismissed on 25.01.2023. Against the said two orders, this petition has been preferred.

4.

In my view, the present writ petition is misconceived, inasmuch, as the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has to be exercised very sparingly. The primary purpose is to see that the Courts below act within the bounds of their jurisdiction. The Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court had the jurisdiction to pass orders on the petitioner’s application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as well as in the Appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is not for this Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to correct errors of facts or law.

5.

I do not find any merit in this petition, and the same is accordingly dismissed.

6.

Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.