HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 1596 of 2011 (M/S) Jitendra Kumar Chauhan ..… Petitioner Versus District Judge, Haridwar And others. ….. Respondents. Mr. Siddhartha Singh, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. K.C. Tiwari, Brief Holder for the State. Hon’ble B.S. Verma, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the part of the impugned order dated 21.07.2011 (annexure no. 1 to the writ petition), passed by respondent No. 1, whereby the parties were directed to maintain status quo till 19.08.2011. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to this writ petition are that Misc. Appeal No. 58 of 2011, was filed by respondent No. 2-Premwati against the order dated 16.07.2011, whereby temporary injunction application, filed under Order 39 Rule 2, before the trial court, was rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the appellate court without considering the ingredients of 2 the temporary injunction regarding prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss has granted status quo order, which is illegal, perverse and cannot be sustained. After perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the impugned order whereby the parties were directed to maintain status quo is a non-speaking order. The grievance of the petitioner is that an application under Order 39 Rule 1,2 read with Section 151 C.P.C. was filed by the appellant seeking interim restrain order against the defendant/respondent. There is no whisper in the impugned order that prima facie case, balance of convenience is in favour of appellant/defendant and if temporary injunction is not granted then irreparable loss would be of the appellant. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to file objection against the impugned order, which is an exparte order, passed by the appellate court. If such objection is filed, the appellate court after hearing the petitioner shall decide the application for temporary injunction as expeditiously as possible without further 3 delay in the matter. It is further directed that the appeal be heard as expeditiously as possible and the same be decided preferably within a period of three months. The parties shall co-operate in the expeditious disposal of the appeal. (B.S. Verma, J.) 02.08.2011 S