IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 608 of 2005 (M/S) With Misc. Application No. 1657 / 08 Misc. Application No. 1336 / 08 [ Sri Tilak Raj Gupta and 26 others ...…………. Applicants / Petitioners Versus Ram Kumar and 5 others ...………… Respondents Mr. Pankaj Miglani, Advocates for the petitioners. Mr. Sharad Sharma, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mrs. Indu Sharma, respondents No. 1 and 2. (Respondents No. 1 and 2 are also present in person as directed by the Court). Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2) By means of this writ petition, moved under Article 226 read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 02.05.2005, passed by Addl. District Judge, Haridwar, in O.S. No. 04 of 1998, whereby said court has rejected 2 the Application 87-C, moved on behalf of the petitioners (defendants before the trial court). 3) Brief facts of the case are that Suit No. 04 of 1998, was instituted by plaintiffs Swami Hariharanand (respondent No. 3) and five others, relating to a Trust property seeking permission under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The trial court appears to have granted the permission under Section 92 of the Code, on 14.09.1998. The defendants moved Application 11-C for recall of the permission granted to the plaintiffs. While, orders were yet to be passed on said application, it appears that some of the plaintiffs moved applications 36-C and 38-C, seeking their withdrawal from the proceedings. On said applications following order was passed on 05.04.1999: “vkt ;g ewyokn is’k gqvk mHk; Ik{kksa ds vf/koDrkx.k mifLFkr vk;s oknhx.k 4 o 5 dk izkFkZuki= 32x2 fnukad 8&1&99] oknh 1 dk izkFkZuki= 36x2 fnukafdr 24&2&99 o oknh la[;k 3 dk izkFkZuki= 38x2 fnukafdr 23&3&99 is’k gq, vkns’k gqvk fd izkFkhZ ds fo)ku vf/koDrk dks lquk izkFkZuki= Lohdkj fd;k tkrk gSA foi{khx.k ds vf/koDrk }kjk 'kiFk Ik= nkf[ky djus gsrq le; pkgk x;kA vkns’k gqvk fd Ik=koyh okLrs lekr 11C2 fnaukd 14&5&99 dks is’k gksA” It is the aforesaid order which is interpreted in the impugned order dated 2nd of May 2005 by the trial court, while passing the order on Application 87-C, moved by Gyan Prakash Chopra (present petitioner). 3 4) Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that learned Addl. District Judge, Haridwar, had no jurisdiction to sit in appeal against its own order. It is further contended that the trial court has wrongly interpreted its order dated 05.04.1999, passed on the Applications 36-C and 38-C. 5) Having gone through the impugned order passed by the trial court, this Court found that entire controversy revolves around the word ‘Lohdkj’ used by the trial court in order passed on 05.04.1999. Ordinarily, in Hindi word ‘Lohdkj’ means admitting something. Also, in legal terminology word ‘Lohdkj’ is used for the English term ‘allowing’. The argument of learned counsel for the petitioners is that word ‘Lohdkj’ used in order dated 05.04.1999 means ‘allowed’. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents No. 1 and 2 contended that the word ‘Lohdkj’ used in order dated 05.04.1999, is simple expression of admitting the application for consideration. 6) After weighing the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties and scrutinizing the order dated 05.04.1999, this Court finds that had the order dated 05.04.1999, ended with word ‘Lohdkj fd;k tkrk gS’, it would have clearly said that the intention of the court was that the applications are allowed. But, after the expression ‘Lohdkj fd;k tkrk gS’ the trial court has further 4 observed and directed that the counsel for the opposite party may file the affidavit as desired by him, and further directed that Application 11-C shall be disposed of on 14.05.1999. This latter part of the direction in order dated 05.04.1999 clearly shows the intention of the court that it has not recalled the order permitting the plaintiffs to file suit under Section 92 of the Code. Had that been the intention of the trial court, it would not have directed that the suit be listed for disposal of Application 11-C. Application 11-C was the application moved on behalf of the defendants for recall of the permission granted to the plaintiffs. In the above circumstances, the trial court has committed no error of law in passing impugned order dated 02.05.2005, while rejecting the Application 87-C. That being so, the writ petition has no force. 7) For the reasons as discussed above, the writ petition is dismissed. Interim order dated 16.06.2005, passed by this Court, stands automatically vacated. (Misc. Application No. 1657 of 2008 as well as Misc. Application No. 1336 of 2008 both stands disposed of without prejudice to the rights of parties in the suit). [ (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt. September 17, 2009. H. Negi