ORDER 1. The respondent No.3 is a plaintiff in a Suit, which was instituted on 18th September, 2014, in which, the petitioner, is the defendant No.3, who was impleaded subsequently by the Court's order, on 17th October, 2015. The plaintiff/respondent No.3, in the Suit had modulated the decree, which was sought from the Court below; in the following manner :- ^^v& ;g fd }kjk LFkk;h fu'ks?kkKk izfroknhx.k dks fuf’k/k fd;k tkos fd os oknh dh iV~Vs'kqnk lEifRr lhekafdr okni= ftlesa oknh dk iq[rk fuekZ.k gqvk gSA fLFkr lqeu ekxZ] dLck dksV}kj] ijxuk o rglhy dksV}kj] ftyk iksMh xढoky ij dksbZ Hkh uo fuekZ.k voS/k :i ls fdlh Hkh izdkj dk vius }kjk ;k vius losZUV ;k ,stsUV }kjk u djsaA o dksbZ dk;Z ,slk u djs ftlls fd lEifRr iV~Vs'kqnk ij oknh ds vf/kdkj izHkkfor gksaA c& ;g fd }kjk vkns'kkRed fu"ks?kkKk izfroknhx.k dks vknsf'kr fd;k tkos fd os fu/kkZfjr le;kfof/k] tks U;k;ky; }kjk fuf'pr dh tk;s] ds vUnj lEifRr fookfnr ij ls viuk dCtk o n[ky gVk dj dCtk o n[ky oknh dk djk nsa vU;Fkk izfroknhx.k ds [kpZ ij }kjk vehu vnkyr dCtk o n[ky oknh dk djk;k tkosA l&;g fd mn~/kks"k.kk bl vk'k; dh Qjek;h tkos fd okni= esa fn;s x;s vk/kkjksa dh fcuk ij rFkkdfFkr clh;r fnukafdr 05-04-1990 ,d tkyh] QthZ] dwVjfpr] cukoVh] >wBk o 'kwU; nLrkost gS rFkk fujLr gksus ;ksX; gS fujLr fd;k tkosA rFkk vkns'k ds vuqikyu o vko';d dk;Zokgh gsrq bldh ,d izfr lc jftLVªkj dk;kZy;] dksV}kj ¼ iksMh xढoky½ dks izsf"kr dh tkosA n& vU; nknjlh tks oknh ds gd esa gks }kjk vnkyr vrk Qjek;h tkosA M& ;g fd [kpkZ okn dk oknh dks izfroknhx.k ls fnyk;k tkosA^^ 2. The said Suit proceeded on merits and, ultimately, it was decreed by the learned Trial Court vide its judgment dated 31st July, 2018, and as a consequence of the judgment and decree, which was rendered, the learned Trial Court, had passed the following decree :- ^^36- oknh dk okn fo:} izfroknh la[;k 1 o 3 lO;; vkKIr fd;k tkrk gS rFkk izfroknh la[;k 3 ds g des gqbZ olh;r fnukafdr 05-04-1990 dks 'kwU; o fu.izHkkoh /kksf"kr fd;k tkrk gSA izfroknh la[;k 1 dks vknsf'kr fd;k tkrk gS fd oknxzLr laifRr ls viuk dCTkk o n[ky gVkdj vkt frfFk ls 30 fnu ds Hkhrj nkoh lEifRr dk dCtk oknh dks lkSai ns rFkk rni'pkr mDr laifRr ij Lo;a o vius ukSdj] ,stsUVksa ls fdlh izdkj ds n[kknkath ls lnSo&lnSo ds fy, fuf"k} jgsA i=koyh fu;ekuqlkj nkf[ky nrj gksA^^ 3. The nature of decree, which was thus rendered by the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kotdwar, District Pauri Garhwal, on 31st July, 2018, it contained a twin fold declaration, i.e. one in relation to the will dated 5th April, 1990, which was declared as to be null and void, and the second part of the decree was that the defendant No.1 was directed to vacate the disputed property within a period of 30 days from the date of the judgment. 4. The present petitioner, who was impleaded as defendant No.3, contends in the Writ Petition, that he was in occupation of the property, in question, for the reasons best known, he had filed an application on 29th August, 2018, by invoking the provisions contained under Order 9 Rule 13, to be read with Section 151 of the C.P.C., praying therein for setting aside the decree and the manner in which the pleadings was raised, in the recall or the application for setting aside, was confined to the part of the decree, which was effecting him and, particularly, a reference may be had to para 11 of the application under Order 9 Rule 13 and the relief as claimed therein in the application under Order 9 Rule 13. Para 11 of the recall application, under Order 9 Rule 13 is referred as under :- "It is therefore prayed that in the interest of justice, this learned Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the Exparte judgment dt.31-07-2018 & decree dt.04-08-2018 passed in the OS No. 81 of 2014 - Sh. Para 11 of the recall application, under Order 9 Rule 13 is referred as under :- "It is therefore prayed that in the interest of justice, this learned Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the Exparte judgment dt.31-07-2018 & decree dt.04-08-2018 passed in the OS No. 81 of 2014 - Sh. Mamalluddin V/s Nafees Ahmad & Others and opportunity of proper defence be extended to the applicant/defendant and the aforementioned case be tried in presence of applicant/defendant." 5. The application thus preferred by the petitioner under Order 9 Rule 13 of the CPC; has been decided and rather has been allowed by the learned Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) by the impugned order dated 6th September, 2019. But while allowing the application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the CPC, and having considered the objection of the defendant No.1, the application preferred by the present petitioner, who was defendant No.3, it was limited to the extent of the declaration made in relation to the will dated 5th April, 1990, was set aside in his favour. But since rest of the part of the decree was even otherwise was never sought to be recalled in an application under Order 9 Rule 13, and which altogether contained a different intention with regard to the relief No.B only which was sought in the Suit, that was left undisturbed. The petitioner apprehending, that as a consequence of setting aside of the partial decree, so far it related to the declaration made in relation to the will of 5th April, 1990 only, it would be limited to that extent and the part of the decree directing the eviction since it would continue to operate, it may affect his rights because there may be a possibility that he may be evicted, in the execution proceedings. 6. He further contends that since he happens to be an owner, the said part of the decree too while considering the application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the CPC; ought to have been set aside. 7. 6. He further contends that since he happens to be an owner, the said part of the decree too while considering the application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the CPC; ought to have been set aside. 7. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the respondent No.3 has submitted that the petitioner cannot be said to be having any grievance; as against the order allowing the application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the CPC, which was preferred by him only and looking to the limitation of relief granted while setting aside decree, in fact, his application under Order 9 Rule 13 was rather allowed to the extent for which the prayer was made by the petitioner himself, in the application itself and at a Writ stage, he cannot take the liberty and stand and come forward and raise a plea, that the part of the decree relating to the relief-B, as sought in the Suit too also be set aside, which would be beyond the scope of his application under Order 9 Rule 13, which was preferred by the petitioner himself, he cannot pray for, beyond the relief which he himself has choosen to press, before the Court below. 8. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the contents of the application under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC, which was preferred by the petitioner himself under Order 9 Rule 13 of the CPC, since he had confined his relief only for setting aside of the ex parte decree, limited to the extent it affects his rights in relation to the will dated 05.04.1990, and that was granted so far it related to the declaration made in relation to the will of 5th April, 1990, he could not have any grievance as such to assail the said order due to the denial of setting aside the part of the decree directing relating to relief-B in the Suit, for the handing over of the possession of the property. 9. 9. In the Writ Petition, the petitioner cannot be permitted to take a liberty to travel beyond the relief, that what he has sought for in his application under Order 9 Rule 13, because he himself has voluntarily chosen to question only part of the decree and has sought a limited relief for setting aside of the decree rendered by the learned Trial Court relating to the declaration of will dated 05.04.1990, and which was stood granted to him. 10. During the course of argument, it has also emerged from the arguments of the Counsel, that as against the judgment and decree, which was rendered by the Trial Court on 04.08.2018, a regular Appeal is pending already consideration, in which, the petitioner, since already being the defendant No.3, is also a party respondent, in case, if he has any grievance, as such of an imminent threat of being evicted as a consequence of enforcement of the decree, under whatsoever legal grounds, which may available to him, it would be for him to file an appropriate application in a pending Civil Appeal. As far as the order allowing the application under Order 9 Rule 13 is concerned limited to the extent to which the petitioner has prayed for and which later on stood affirmed by the Revisional Court, does not suffer from any apparent error as such because the relief claimed by the petitioner stood granted, coupled with the fact that since the regular Appeal; is already pending consideration, at this stage, the order of allowing the application under Order 9 Rule 13; ought not to be disturbed by this Court in the exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, as it may also have an adverse bearing on the pending Civil Appeal. 11. Consequently, subject to the liberty open to the petitioner to file an appropriate application in a pending Appeal, the Writ Petition lacks merit and the same is dismissed. 12. After concluding the judgment, the learned counsel for the petitioner has sought permission to file an Appeal. Though this Court is not expressing any opinion with regard to the tenability of his Appeal, if that remedy is available to him under law, he may avail it, strictly as per law.