IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 1412 of 2009 Umesh Chandra Mishra S/o Late Hari Dutt Mishra R/o Sitoli Road, Dhar Kitoani, Almora, District Almora ……………Petitioner Versus Hari Singh S/o Jeet Singh, R/o Village Mal, Patti Khasparza, Tehsil & District Almora ………… Respondents Hon'ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard Mr. R.C. Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. By means of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 27.07.2009, passed by the revisional court (District Judge, Almora) in Civil Revision No. 11 of 2009, whereby said court has set aside the order dated 02.04.2009, rejecting the application 103C, moved by the defendant. 3. Brief facts of the case are that plaintiff Umesh Chandra Mishra (present petitioner) instituted Suit No. 04 of 2000 against the defendant / respondent for permanent injunction 2 in respect of property in suit, situated in Village Dugalkhola, Patti Khasparza, District Almora (Khasra Khatauni No. 92). In the first round of litigation, said suit was dismissed by the trial court on the ground that the land in dispute is not identifiable. It appears that plaintiff preferred appeal before the District Judge, which was also dismissed and finally Second Appeal No. 75 of 2004 was filed by the plaintiff which was decided vide order dated 07.04.2008. By said order, this Court remanded the matter for fresh decision of the trial court with the observation that the defendant may raise certain pleas in additional written statement. However, the High Court has not specifically set aside the rejection of the amendment application, and directed that the trial court shall proceed afresh in accordance with law. Whether the amendment application is to be allowed or not, the order is silent. The trial court took the view that the amendment which was rejected in the earlier round of litigation stood automatically allowed but the revisional court took the view that the trial court is to decide the application and objections afresh on amendment application. 4. Having considered submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and after going through the impugned order passed by the revisional court, this Court does not find any sufficient 3 reason to interfere with the impugned order dated 27.07.2009, as the trial court has to decide the case afresh in the light of the observations made by this court in order dated 07.04.2008 in Second Appeal No. 75 of 2004. (5) Therefore, the petition is dismissed with the observation that the trial court may proceed further and decide application 83A for amendment and objections there on, as directed by the revisional court. (Stay Application No. 7328 of 2009 also stands dismissed). (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) 25.08.2009 NS