IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition 5656 of 2001 (M/S) Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Kashipur District Udham Singh Nagar, Through its Secretary ..……… Petitioner. Versus District Judge, Udham Singh Nagar And another ……… Respondents Mr. J.C. Belwal, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Sudhir Kumar, the learned counsel for the respondents. Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J. Heard Shri J.C. Belwal, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Sudhir Kumar, the learned counsel for the respondents. The plaintiff filed a suit against the Mandi Samiti alleging that they are not liable to pay the Mandi fee on the purchase of the seeds which are being processed as certified seeds. The plaintiff also filed an application for grant of temporary injunction which was rejected by the trial court, against which, the petitioner preferred a miscellaneous appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 (r). The appellate court, after considering the matter, passed an order dated 27th August, 1999 allowing the appeal and granted an injunction restraining the Mandi Samiti from realizing any Mandi fee on the purchase of seeds made by the plaintiff. The Mandi Samiti, being aggrieved by the said order, filed the present writ petition which was admitted and an interim order dated 15/10/1999 was passed staying the effect and operation of the impugned order dated 27th August, 1999. This interim order is still continuing till date. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that such an interim injunction could not have been granted by the trial court which would have resulted in 2 allowing the suit itself finally. The fact that the seeds which are being purchased by the plaintiff is exempted under the schedule or is certified under the Seeds Act and, therefore, exempted and the question whether the seeds are being processed as certified seeds is a question of fact which is required to be proved by evidence and, consequently, at this stage the grant of an interim injunction was not justified. Consequently, the court is of the opinion that such an injunction restraining the Mandi Samiti from realizing the Mandi fee could not be issued. This Court further finds that the injunction granted by the lower appellate court has been stayed in the year 1999 which has continued to operate for the last 11 years. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned order cannot be sustained and is quashed. The writ petition is allowed. The trial court is directed to decide the suit expeditiously preferably within a period of one year from the date of the production of a certified copy of the order. (Tarun Agarwala, J.) Dated 03.08.2010 Shiv