HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINTAL SECOND APPEAL NO. 9 OF 2008 Jaman Singh ………..Plaintiffs -Appellant Versus State of Uttarakhand & Ors. …Plaintiff-Respondent Dated: 9.6.2008 Hon’ble Rajesh Tandon, J. None appears for the appellant. Sri R.C. Upadhyay, counsel for the respondent is present. 2. After admission, the second appeal has been dismissed for want of prosecution as none appeared on 13.05.2008 and the same was restored on 17.04.2008. 3. Today, the list has been taken up four times, neither any mention has been made on behalf of the appellant nor the counsel for the appellant is present. 4. By the present Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, appellant has prayed for setting aside the judgment and decree dated 6.9.20075 passed by the District Judge, Almora, in Civil Appeal No. 13 of 2006 Keshav Dutt Joshi and others Vs. Jaman Singh and others arising out in Civil Suit No. 26 of 2002 (Jaman Singh and others Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others. 5. The appellate Court has allowed the appeal directing the plaintiff to file the suit before the Revenue Court. 6. A perusal of the plaint shows that plaintiffs have sought correction in the revenue record. Paragraph 7 of the plaint is quoted below: “7- fd jktLo vfHkys[kksa esa gqbZ bl xyrh nq:Lrh }kjk ugha lq/kkjk tk ldrk gS bl dkj.k nhokuh okn }kjk jktLo vfHkys[kksa esa gqbZ bl xyrh dks lq/kkj djus gsrq bl ?kks"k.kk ds ckn dks djus dh vko’;drk gqbZA” 7. While allowing the appeal, the appellate Court has recorded the finding that for correction of the revenue records, civil court is not competent. Reliance has been place upon the judgment of Ram Awasthi Vs. Jata Shankar AIR 1969 Allahabad 526 with regard to proposition of law that a recoded tenure holder alone is entitled to file the suit in the civil court. The appellate Court has recorded the finding that the plaint is liable to be returned for presentation to the appropriate Court. 8. In view of the above, I find no substance question of law involved in the preset second appeal and the second appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. (Rajesh Tandon, J.) 9.6.2008 Rathour