IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No. 240 of 2009. Anil Sarna S/O Late Shri Mool Raj Sarna, R/O B.U. 137 Bishakhaa Enclave Pritampura Delhi-88. … Petitioner. Vs. Trilok Chand Gupta S/O Late Sri Pooran Chandra, R/O 180 Latowali Gali, Kankhal, Pargana Jawalapur, Tehsil and District Haridwar and others. …Respondents. Sri M.S.Tyagi, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri Arvind Kumar Sharma, Advocate, learned counsel for the respondent no.1. Sri Raveendra Singh Bisht, Advocate, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 Sri Sunder Khatri, Sri Dhananjaya Kumar Tyagi and Sri B.M.Pingal, Advocates for respondent nos. 4, 5 & 8. Sri R.C. Arya, learned Brief Holder for the State-respondent no.13 Date September 14, 2009. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. Learned counsel for the parties have agreed that this writ petition may be disposed of finally at the admission stage. Heard learned counsel for the contesting parties and perused the record including the impugned order. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 14-1-2009 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation Haridwar (for short the D.D.C.) in Revision No. 221/2007- 08 (Annexure No. 7 to the writ petition) whereby the prayer of the petitioner for time to file objection against application of respondent no.1-revisionist was refused. The petitioner alleges himself to be the subsequent purchasers of the land in dispute. 2 Briefly stated, the relevant facts are that during the pendency of the revision filed by the respondent no.1 before the D.D.C., the petitioner Anil Kumar Sarna as well as Abhay Singh and Swatantra Kumar moved separate applications for their impleadment in the revision on the ground that they have purchased the disputed property and their interest is involved in the case and they are necessary party to the revision. Abhay Singh is the alleged power of attorney, while petitioner Anil Kumar Sarna and Swatantra Kumar are the subsequent purchasers of the disputed land. These three persons also filed power of attorney as well as the registered sale- deeds before the D.D.C. After hearing the parties, the applications for impleadment filed by each them were allowed and the petitioner and two others were impleaded as respondents in the revision vide order dated 29-11- 2008. The respondent no. 1 was directed to carry out amendments in the revision. The revisionist-respondent no.1 moved an application on 14-1-2009 for amendment of revision petition and also prayed for adding paragraph no. 12 to the revision contending that the said persons have no concern with the land in dispute. The counsel for the petitioner prayed for time to file objection against the proposed amendment. The learned D.D.C. after hearing the learned counsel for all the parties has allowed the amendment application of the respondent no.1 holding that the right of the objectors is not adversely affected by the proposed amendment, but has rejected the application of Abhay Singh as well as prayer of the petitioner for grant of time to file objection against the proposed amendment. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 14-1-2009 (Annexure-7) was passed. 3 Learned counsel for the petitioner Sri M.S.Tyagi has contended that the direction was given to respondent no. 1 to implead the petitioner and two others in compliance of order dated 29-11-2008, but apart from that, by the proposed amendment, the respondent no. 1 added one more paragraph no. 12 to the revision petition wherein the respondent no.1-revisionist raised additional ground that the sale-deeds, which were executed are forged and no rights had accrued to them on the basis of the sale-deeds, which is beyond the scope of revision. The grievance of the petitioner is that he seeks time to file objection against the amendment application in so far as it relates to adding of paragraph no. 12, but no time was given to file written objection. On the other hand, the amendment application of the respondent no.1 was allowed in toto. The petitioner has no grievance against the first part of the amendment by which in the memo of revision petition, the petitioner and two others were directed to be arrayed as respondent no.6, 7 and 8 to the revision. So far as the second part of the amendment relating to adding of para no. 12 is concerned, it is obvious that the respondent no.1 is disputing the sale- deeds which were executed by his own power of attorney holder saying that the sale-deeds are forged and without any legal authority. The learned D.D.C. has allowed the proposed amendment without considering the objection of the petitioners and the scope of the revision. The revision petition has been filed against the order dated 6-9-2003 passed by the Consolidation Officer and in the revision, propriety of the impugned order dated 6-9-2003 has to be examined by the D.D.C. 4 Having considered the contentions of learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the proposed amendment, i.e. paragraph no. 12, sought to be added in the revision petition is beyond the scope of revision because the proposed amendment is an improvement of pleadings. The only direction which was given by the D.D.C. vide order dated 29-11-2008 was for impleadment of petitioner and Abhay Singh and Swatantra Kumar as respondents to the revision petition. The respondent no.1 was under obligation of court’s order dated 29-11- 2008 to amend the memo of parties and there was no occasion for the respondent no.1 to add further pleadings to the revision. The learned D.D.C. has committed a manifest error of law in allowing the second part of amendment relating to paragraph no. 12. Accordingly, the second part of the impugned order directing the respondent no.1-revisionist to add paragraph no. 12 to the revision petition is not sustainable and to that extent the impugned order is liable to be quashed. The writ petition therefore deserves to be partly allowed. The first part of the impugned order allowing amendment to implead petitioner and two others as respondents is maintained. The writ petition is partly allowed. The impugned order so far as it relates to adding of paragraph 12 to the revision petition is quashed. Rest of the order is maintained. Costs easy. However, it is directed that the learned D.D.C. shall decide the revision expeditiously as far as possible, after hearing all the parties concerned including the petitioner, Swatantra Kumar and Abhay Singh. (B.S.Verma,J.) RCP 5