IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No. 910 of 2011 1. Veer Bahadur Thapa, S/O Sri Ran Bahadur Thapa, R/O 34 Ballupur, Dehradun, District- Dehradun. 2. Smt. Neelam Thapa, W/O Veer Bahadur Thapa, R/O 34 Ballupur, Dehradun, District- Dehradun. … Petitioners. Versus Major Raj Bahadur Thapa, S/O Late Sri Ran Bahadur Thapa, R/O Lane No. 5, 51 Turner Road, Dehradun, District-Dehradun. … Respondent. Mr. Neeraj Garg, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioners. Mr. Ramji Srivastava, Advocate, learned counsel for the respondent. Date May 10, 2011. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. (Stay Application No. 4601 of 2011) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. By means of this writ petition, the petitioners have sought a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 6- 4-2011 passed by the 1st Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Dehradun and the order dated 4-5-2011 passed by the Incharge District Judge Dehradun. By the order dated 6-4-2011, the learned 1st Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Dehradun has dismissed the application (paper no. 91-C) moved by the petitioner no.2/defendant no.2 for permission to cross-examine the petitioner no.1/defendant no.1 at his house on the ground of ailment. By the order dated 4-5-2011, the revision preferred against the order dated 6-4-2011 has been dismissed by the revisional court. A perusal of the record shows that by the order dated 6-4-2011, the learned 1st Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Dehradun after hearing both the parties has observed in his order that the petitioner no.1/defendant no.1 was never admitted in the hospital for treatment. This finding has been given on the basis of medical papers, which have been filed by the petitioners themselves. Learned trial court has further given a finding that the ailment alleged is not of such a nature that the petitioner no. 1 is incapacitated to move from the bed and that the application has 2 been moved for lingering on the proceeding. The suit is pending since the year 2002. The trial court rejected the application 91-C. Aggrieved by the order dated 6-4-2011, the petitioners preferred Civil Revision No. 53 of 2011 before the District Judge. The revisional court also did not find favour with the petitioners- revisionists and rejected the revision by order dated 4-5-2011 on similar grounds. In the absence of any document suggesting that the petitioner no.1 is unable to move from the bed, the application (paper no. 91-C) has been rightly rejected by the learned trial court and the revisional court has rightly dismissed the revision. The impugned orders, in my view, do not suffer from any perversity or manifest error of law. The writ petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed outright at the threshold. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent informed the Court that in such type of cases, the evidence is being recorded on the ground floor of the court building at some particular place. If evidence in other cases by the order of the court is being recorded in the ground floor at some particular place, the petitioners would be at liberty to move an application before the court concerned and the court shall consider this aspect and may pass appropriate order for recording evidence. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition is dismissed in limine. (B.S.Verma, J.) RCP