Uttarakhand High Court
WPMS/2477/2026 of VIJAY SINGH BISHT Vs JAIDEV SHARMA on 17 August 2026
SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPMS/2477/2026 Vijay Singh Bisht --Petitioner Versus Jaidev Sharma --Respondent With WPMS No. 2478 of 2026 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar
UKHC010143902026
2026:UHC:7357
SL.
No.
Date
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
or directions
and Registrar’s
order with
Signatures
COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS
WPMS/2477/2026
Vijay Singh Bisht
--Petitioner
Versus
Jaidev Sharma
--Respondent
With
WPMS No. 2478 of 2026
Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Mr. Sagar Kothari, learned counsel for the petitioners.
2. Since common questions of law and fact are involved in both the petitions, therefore, they are being heard and decided together. However, for the sake of brevity and convenience, facts of WPMS No. 2477 of 2026 alone are being considered and discussed.
3. A suit for permanent prohibitory injunction, in which relief of mandatory injunction was also sought, was filed by respondent no. 1 against petitioner as well as respondent nos. 2 & 3, which was decreed by trial court vide judgment and order dated 14.03.2024.
4. Petitioner filed appeal against the judgment and decree passed by trial court. Before the First Appellate Court, petitioner moved an application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC, seeking to place copy of revenue records on the file. The said application was rejected by learned First Appellate Court vide order dated UKHC010143902026
2026:UHC:7357 24.07.2026. Thus, feeling aggrieved, petitioner has approached this Court.
5. This Court do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. Law is well settled that Appellate Court should not travel outside the record of the lower court record and cannot take any evidence in appeal. However, there is an exception provided under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC, which enables the Appellate Court to take additional evidence on record in exceptional circumstances.
6. In the present case, there was no such exceptional circumstance, as the copy of revenue record was available to the petitioner throughout pendency of the suit. Thus, learned trial court was justified in rejecting the application of the petitioner.
7. Thus, there is no scope for interference in the matter. The writ petitions fail and are dismissed.
(Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J)
17.08.2026 Aswal
NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL Digitally signed by NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=eacc6757ee7881e933ff8934f07477005aa85f9802a3a08b08d13 69512ea30f3, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=44EB54CBF00B7698CB6F10C2CE3D26F5C22DACF4F461 0C1FE58A58531726FBB0, cn=NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL Date: 2026.08.18 07:54:33 -07'00'