Uttarakhand High Court
Smt. Suman Ahuja vs Smt. Anjali Ahuja And Others on 5 May, 2026
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition No.1236 (M/S) of 2026
Smt. Suman Ahuja ........Defendant/Petitioner
Versus
Smt. Anjali Ahuja and others ........Respondents
Present:-
Mr. Ramji Srivastava, Advocate for the defendant/petitioner.
Mr. Vikas Bahuguna, Advocate for the respondents.
Hon'ble Siddhartha Sah, J.
The challenge in this petition is to the order dated
20.02.2026 passed by the learned Civil Judge (J.D.), Srinagar, Pauri
Garhwal in Original Civil Suit No.04/2025, Anjali Ahuja vs. Suman
Ahuja, whereby, the amendment application 20Ga of the
plaintiff/respondent was partly allowed. The second prayer is to set
aside/quash the entire proceeding of the Original Civil Suit No.04 of
2025, Anjali Ahuja vs. Suman Ahuja and others, pending in Court of
learned Civil Judge (J.D.), Srinagar, Pauri Garhwal.
2. Assailing the impugned order dated 20.02.2026, learned
counsel for the petitioner submitted that prior to the amendment,
certain concealments were made by the plaintiff/respondent no.1.
Hence an application was filed on behalf of the defendant/petitioner
regarding maintainability of the civil suit.
3. Learned counsel for the defendant/petitioner further
submitted that even prior to the institution of the suit for perpetual
injunction an eviction order has been passed on 25.02.2025 under the
provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior
2
Citizens Act, 2007, whereby, the eviction order was passed against the
plaintiff/respondent. Concealing that particular order, the suit for
permanent injunction was filed and he has particularly attracted the
attention of the Court to the date of instituting the suit which was
instituted on 10.03.2015.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that
without challenging that order and without disclosing that material
fact, the injunction suit was filed and interim order dated 10.03.2025
was passed by the Trial Court since the plaintiff/respondent had not
disclosed about passing of the eviction order dated 25.02.2025. The
learned counsel further submitted that after putting in appearance in
the said suit, preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the suit
was filed by virtue of an application dated 20.03.2025, wherein, it was
contended that the suit is liable to be dismissed on account of the bar
contained in Section 27 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and
Senior Citizens Act, 2007. It was further contended that the said
application kept pending. However, in the meantime, the
plaintiff/respondent filed an amendment application to fill up the
lacunae whereby seeking to incorporate certain pleas in the plaint as
well as also seeking additional prayers of partition and declaration and
thus made a submission that against it objections were filed by the
defendant/petitioner. However, without properly appreciating the
objections preferred on behalf of the defendant/petitioner, the trial
court, by virtue of the impugned order, partially allowed the
amendment application, whereby para numbers 26A, 26B, 26C, 26D,
26E were permitted to be incorporated along with the amendments
sought in para C, D, E and F. Thus, counsel for the defendant/
petitioner assailed the said order on the premise that the order
allowing the amendments, bring a sea change in the nature of the suit,
3
and as such, the order is erroneous and also circumventing the
application filed regarding the maintainability of the suit. Hence, the
order impugned is erroneous and cannot be sustained.
5. Per contra, counsel for the plaintiff/respondent herein
made the submissions that first of all, the trial court has only allowed
the amendment partially. Learned counsel for the plaintiff/respondent
further submitted that since the suit is at the pre-trial stage, hence the
amendment ought to have been allowed liberally and that has been
rightly done by the trial court, and thus there is no scope for
interference. The counsel for the plaintiff/respondent, while referring to
the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jacky v. Tiny
alias Antony & Ors., reported in (2014) 6 SCC 508, and particularly
referring to paras 2, 13, 15 thereof, made the submission that the
second prayer of the writ petition would not be tenable, and the writ
petition for such prayer would not be maintainable. He also referred to
the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of P. Suresh vs.
D. Kalaivani and Ors. reported in 2026 SCC online SC 143, while
referring to para 2, 5.5, 6.1, 7 and 7.4 thereof, he made the submission
that it was open to the petitioner to have preferred applications and
order 7 Rule 11 and order 6 Rule 16 of the CPC, and such a relief for
the quashing of the entire plaint by resorting to provisions under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India would not be tenable. He
further submitted that adding a relief will not change the nature of the
suit. Those issues can be gone into in trial regarding the concealment.
6. Learned counsel for the plaintiff/respondent has also
referred to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Abdul Rehman and another versus Mohd. Ruldu and others, reported
in (2012) 11 SCC 341, whereby, it has been held that a change in the
4
nature of relief claimed shall not be considered as a change in the
nature of suit and the power of amendment should be exercised in the
larger interests of doing full and complete justice between the parties.
7. However, learned counsel for the defendant/petitioner
submits that the judgments relied upon by the plaintiff/respondent
would not be attracted and since there have been certain concealments
and the lacunae has been tried to be filled up and the challenge to the
amendment, that was allowed, would be very much tenable.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Raj Shri Agarwal
@ Ram Shri Agarwal & Another v. Sudheer Mohan & Ors., reported in
2022 SCC online SC 1775, and referred to para 3 and 5 thereof, which
are as under:-
“3. By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court
has dismissed the writ petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution
of India, observing that the writ petition, under Article 227 of
the Constitution of India, is not maintainable as remedy by way of
revision under Section 115 CPC is available to the
appellants/plaintiffs. As observed by this Court in catena of decisions
and even in the decisions considered by the High Court, the view
taken by this Court is that where there is availability of remedy
under Section 115 CPC normally “the petition under Article 227 of
the Constitution of India would not lie”. That does not mean that writ
petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, shall not be
maintainable at all. There is a difference and distinction between the
entertainability and maintainability. The remdedy under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India available is a constitutional
remedy under the Constitution of India which cannot be taken away.
In a given case the Court may not exercise the power under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India if the Court is of the opinion
that the aggrieved party has another efficacious remedy available
under the CPC. However, to say that the writ petition under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India shall not be maintainable at
all is not tenable.
5. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the
present Appeal succeeds. The impugned judgment and order passed
by the High Court dismissing the writ petition, under Article 227 of
the Constitution of India, on the ground that the same shall not be
maintainable is hereby quashed and set aside. The matter is
remanded to the High Court to consider the writ petition in
accordance with law and on merits for which we have not expressed
anything on merits in favour of either parties.”
5
9. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner makes a
statement that he is not pressing the relief number (ii) and he will be
filing appropriate application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC before
the trial court regarding the maintainability of suit and other issues.
The writ petition is thus dismissed qua relief number (ii).
10. After considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances
and the case laws as cited by the learned counsel for the parties, the
writ petition, so far as the legality and correctness of the order dated
20th of February, 2026, needs a deeper scrutiny.
11. Admit the petition.
12. Learned counsel for the plaintiff/respondent seeks two
weeks’ time to file counter affidavit. At this stage, there is no
requirement to issue notice to the performa respondents 1 and 2.
13. List this case on 20.05.2026.
14. Till the next date of listing the further proceedings of
Original Civil Suit No.04 of 2025, Anjali Ahuja vs. Suman Ahuja and
others, pending in Court of learned Civil Judge (J.D.), Srinagar, Pauri
Garhwal shall remain stayed.
15. Stay Application (IA No.1 of 2026) stands disposed of
accordingly.
(Siddhartha Sah, J.)
05.05.2026
Ravi
