IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No. 926 of 2006 Trilok Singh (since deceased) S/O Nath Singh 1/1 Lakshman Singh and others. … Petitioners. Versus Additional Chief Revenue Commissioner Nainital and others. … Respondents. Mr. M.C.Kandpal, Senior Advocate with Mr. S.S.Chaudhay, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. K.C.Tiwari, Brief Holder, learned counsel for the State-respondent no.3. Mr. S.K.Chaudhary, Advocate, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 5 to 7. Date February 19, 2011. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the judgment and order dated 12- 5-2006 passed by the Additional Chief Revenue Commissioner, Uttaranchal, Nainital and the order dated 26-2-1999 passed by Additional Commissioner (Judicial) Kumaun Division, Nainital. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that petitioner Sri Trilok Singh (since deceased) filed revenue suit No. 22/75 of 1995-95 against respondent no. 5 Mahendra Singh and others under Section 229-B of the U.P.Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act on the basis of adverse possession, in the court of Assistant Collector First Class Bhawar, Haldwani. The suit was contested by Gram Sabha and State of U.P. by filing their written statement. Witnesses were also examined by both the parties and their evidence was recorded in the suit. Ultimtely, the trial court decreed the suit of the plaintiff by judgment and decree dated 30-7-1997. It appears that aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 30-7-1997, the Gram Sabha and State preferred Z.A. Appeal No. 134/126 of 1996-97 in the court of Additional Commissioner (Judicial) Kumaun Division, Nainital. The appeal was allowed vide judgment and decree dated 26-2-1999 on the ground that there is no signature of the Presiding Officer on the statement of the witnesses at bottom, who were examined in the court and the mandatory requirement of Rule 59 of the Revenue Court Manual and Order 18 C.P.C. were not adhered to. Hence the statements of witnesses could not be read in evidence. The first 2 appellate court also observed that the suit was decreed on the basis of oral evidence. Accordingly, the judgment and decree passed by the trial court were set aside. The suit was remanded to the trial for decision afresh. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree passed by the first appellate court, the petitioner-plaintiff preferred second appeal before the Additional Chief Revenue Commissioner, Circuit Bench Uttaranchal, Nainital. The second appeal was dismissed by a reasoned judgment order dated 12-5-2006 on similar ground. Rule 59 (1) of the U.P. Revenue Court Manual reads as under:- “(1) The provisions of Rules 4 to 6 and 8 to 10 inclusive, Order XVIII, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, shall apply to all proceedings of a judicial nature under the United Provinces Land Revenue Act, 1901.” The procedure for recording of evidence is contained in Rule 4 of Order 18 C.P.C. This fact is not disputed that there are no signatures of the Presiding Officer at the foot of the statements of witnesses, examined in the suit before the trial court, therefore, the first appellate court has rightly remanded the suit to the trial court. The second appellate court has also considered all the aspect of the case and has held that the first appellate court has rightly remanded the case to the trial court and has ultimately upheld the order passed by the first appellate court by order dated 12-5-2006. By the remand order, no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner-plaintiffs and the suit is yet to be decided on merits. I do not find any perversity or manifest error of law in the impugned orders passed by the learned Additional Chief Revenue Commissioner, Kumaun Division, Nainital and the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate Court. The writ petition being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed. The writ petition is dismissed. All pending applications stand disposed of accordingly. (B.S.Verma, J.) 3 RCP