IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1365 of 2011 Smt. Prabha Arora W/O Late S.K.Arora and another. … Petitioners. Versus Km. Brij Mohani Anand and others. … Respondents. Mr. Tapan Singh, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioners. None present for and on behalf of the respondents despite sufficient service. Date September 16, 2011. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. Notices were issued to the respondents Dasti as well as by registered post, but they have not put in appearance despite sufficient service. By means of this writ petition, the petitioners have sought a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 14-12-2010(contained as Annexure No. 4 to the petition) and to allow the amendment application. The petitioners have further sought a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 7-2-2011 and 21-6-2011 (contained as Annexure Nos. 7 and 8 to the petition) and to take the evidence on record. According to the petitioners, the respondents filed release application under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 against the petitioners, which was registered as P.A. Case No. 43 of 2008 before the Prescribed Authority/Civil Judge (Senior Divison), Dehradun. It appears that the petitioners moved amendment application (paper no. 52-Ka) before the Prescribed Authority, which has been rejected by the Prescribed Authority on the ground that the amendment application does not contain any new facts and the application has been made just to prolong the litigation. The Prescribed Authority after hearing both the parties have observed in the impugned order that the averments which are sought to be added to the objection have already been made in 2 paragraph 10 and 26 of the objection already filed by the petitioners, therefore, the amendment application was rejected by order dated 14-12-2010. The Prescribed Authority further ordered that in case the opposite parties failed to file their entire evidence till the next date, i.e. 6-1-2011, the right to file evidence shall stand closed automatically. It also appears from a perusal of the record that the petitioners have subsequently moved application paper no. 54-Ka contending that due to inadvertence the petitioner-opposite parties could not file their evidence, therefore, the evidence being filed by the opposite parties along with the list 55-Ka be taken on record. The learned Prescribed Authority after hearing both the parties has rejected the application of the petitioners holding that the last opportunity to file evidence by 6-1-2011 was given to them, but the opposite parties have failed to adduce their evidence as directed by order dated 14-12-2010 and consequently, vide order dated 7-2-2011 rejected the application 54-Ka and also ordered that the opposite parties are not entitled to file additional evidence in the case. Further aggrieved, the petitioners filed an application 68-Ka to recall the order dated 14-12-2010 and the order dated 7-2-2011, which was accompanied by an affidavit paper no. 69-Ka. It also appears that the respondents-applicants filed their objection paper no. 70-Ka against the application 68-Ka contending that the opposite parties could have availed the remedy to assail the orders before any higher forum, but they did not like to do so. The application is liable to be dismissed outright on this ground. The Prescribed Authority after hearing both the parties did not find favour with the contention of the opposite parties- petitioners herein and rejected the application by order dated 21-6- 2011. All these orders are impugned in the present writ petition. After having heard the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and having gone through the impugned orders passed by the Prescribed Authority, I am of the view that so far as the amendment application moved by the 3 petitioners is concerned, the learned Prescribed Authority has rightly rejected the amendment application moved by the petitioners holding that the averments were already made in paragraph no. 10 and 26 of the objection. Therefore, the order dated 14-12-2010 does not call for any interference by this Court so far as the rejection of amendment application is concerned. So far as the rejection of the application of the petitioners to take evidence on record, which has been filed per list 55-Ka, it would be in the interest of justice that the case is decided on merits, therefore, the evidence which has already been filed by the petitioners along with list 55-Ka ought to have been taken on record. In my view no prejudice would be caused to the respondents if last opportunity to lead additional evidence is allowed to the petitioners. The application of the petitioners (paper no. 67-Ka) to file additional evidence deserves to be allowed on payment of cost. The writ petition, therefore, deserves to be partly allowed. The writ petition is partly allowed. The evidence filed by the petitioners per list 55-Ka be taken on record by the Prescribed Authority and the petitioners be given one last opportunity to file remaining/additional evidence on 26-9-2011 before the Prescribed Authority, subject to payment of cost of Rs. 1,000/- (Rs. One thousand) payable to the respondents on or before the date fixed. On payment/deposit of cost of Rs. 1,000/- before the Prescribed Authority, as directed above, the evidence filed per list 55-Ka shall stand taken on record and the petitioners would be entitled to file remaining/additional evidence on 26-9-2011. The petitioners shall appear before the Prescribed Authority on 26-9- 2011 to file remaining evidence. To that extent alone the impugned orders passed by the Prescribed Authority shall stand set aside. The learned Prescribed Authority shall proceed further in the matter in accordance with law. (B.S.Verma, J.) RCP