Pankaj Purohit, J
1. By means of present writ petition, petitioners have sought the following reliefs:-
"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing/setting aside the judgment and order dated 30.09.2024 passed by the court of the Assistant Collector, First Class, Purnagiri, District Champawat in Case No.02 of 2015-16, Jagat Singh Rawat & another vs. Hukum Singh & others, whereby the application filed by the petitioner for framing of additional issues was dismissed (Annexure No.5 to this writ petition).
(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing/setting aside the judgment and order dated 23.09.2025 passed by the Board of Revenue, Uttarakhand Dehradun in Revision No.07 of 2024-25, titled Sachendra Singh Rawat vs. Keshar Singh Rawat & others, whereby the revision filed by the petitioner against the aforesaid dismissal was rejected (Annexure No.7 to this writ petition).
(iii) Remand the matter back to the Court of the First Assistant Collector, Parganadhikari, Sadar, Dehradun in Suit No.13 of 2021-2022, with a direction to frame issues, grant opportunity to the parties to adduce oral and documentary evidence and thereafter decide the suit on merits in accordance with law."
2. It is the case of the petitioners that a suit under Section 229-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 was instituted before the Court of the Assistant Collector, First Class, Purnagiri, District Champawat, being Case No. 02 of 2015-16, seeking a declaration of bhumidhari rights. Thereafter, the Assistant Collector, First Class framed issues in the case. Subsequently, the petitioners filed an application dated 18.01.2021 seeking the framing of additional issues. The said application was rejected by the learned Assistant Collector vide order dated 25.11.2019. The petitioners again filed a fresh application dated 05.02.2024, which was dismissed on 30.09.2024. Aggrieved by the said order, the defendants preferred a revision, being Revision No. 07 of 2024-25, before the Board of Revenue, Uttarakhand. After hearing both the parties, the learned Board of Revenue dismissed the said revision petition on 23.09.2025. Hence, the petitioners are before this Court.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the courts below committed a serious jurisdictional error in refusing to frame the additional issues solely on the ground of stage and delay, while ignoring the settled position that an issue touching upon maintainability may be raised at any stage and must be adjudicated before proceeding to the merits of the case. He further submits that the courts below failed to consider that the right to seek the framing of proper issues is integral to a fair trial.
4. Having gone through the record, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioners are not entitled to any relief, as there has been no impropriety or illegality committed by the courts below. The reasons assigned by the learned courts below are quite convincing and do not warrant any interference. Further, this Court does not find any jurisdictional or procedural error in the impugned judgments and orders, and therefore declines to invoke its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed in-limine.
5. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
