UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Special Appeal No. 173 of 2016
With
Intervention Application No. 6764 of 2016
Intervention Application No. 6765 of 2016
Intervention Application ... respondent No. 4 (NCTE).
Special Appeal No. 166 of 2016
With
Intervention Application No. 6763 of 2016
Smt. Kajal Negi & another. ............ Appellants
Versus
Harish
Dhyani
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Intervention Application no. 2790 of 2016
Intervention Application no. 2811 of 2016
In
Writ Petition ... Interim Stay Application no. 2754 of 2016 as
well as Urgency Application no. 1706 of 2016 along with
Intervention applications
Application for intervention. He had been expelled from the
Committee. The learned Single Judge not only allowed the Intervention
Application, but also directed that ... challenge two orders. The first is an order by which the Intervention
Application, which we have referred to earlier in the course of the
judgment
eviction suit and then thereafter passing a fresh order
rejected the intervention application filed by the petitioner under
Order 1 Rule 10 CPC .
It appears ... Control Act,
1982 against the tenant-respondent no.2. Earlier the intervention
application was filed by this petitioner which was allowed by the
court below
proceedings.
Reliance is placed on certain other documents filed with the
intervention application.
Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner
opposed the contentions ... have heard the parties on this intervention application.
In the present petition, the petitioner has challenged the
order of repatriation dated 02.12.2016 (Annexure
have to spend again for
re-concretization of the road.
Intervention application (IA No.4 of 2015) has been filed
in Writ Petition ... petitioner as well as the
opposite party on the said intervention application in
accordance with rules.
Reply, if any, on the intervention application be filed
petitioners.
The Court below by the order dated 01.10.2013 allowed
the intervention application in Title Suit No.94 of 2003.
The learned counsel, Mr. Ramchandra ... made party because his father was
there but the intervention application was filed by him claiming
that he is the son of Sri Kishun Yadav
application of intervention also i.e. I.A.
No.4969/15.
Arguments heard. Same is allowed.
In the intervention application, it has been stated that
Special Appeal No. 238 of 2016
With
Delay Condonation Application No. 9046 of 2016
Application for Leave to Appeal No. 9048 of 2016
Vivek Singh ... Uttarakhand & others. ............. Respondents
Special Appeal No. 622 of 2015
With
Intervention Application No. 8659 of 2016
Intervention Application No. 10023 of 2016
Vikas Kumar
file
reply.
---8---
By way of indulgence, list on 04.05.2016.
Intervention application is allowed. Intervention be
carried in terms of this order by tomorrow
