IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No. 295 of 2004 Man Mohan Singh Negi, S/o Sri Chander Singh Negi, R/o 388/661, Rajpur Road, Dehradun. Petitioner. Versus 1. Civil Judge (Senior Division)/F.T.C. –VII, Dehradun. 2. Smt. Uma Devi, W/o Late Veer Vikram Singh, 3. Geenu, S/o Late Bir Vikram Singh. 4. Rajat, S/o Late Bir Vikram Singh. 5. Sri Sohan Singh, S/o Chander Singh Negi. 6. Smt. Sakuntala Puri, W/o Virender Kumar Puri, All R/o 388/661, Rajpur Road, Dehradun, District Dehradun. 7. Sri Jaiwant Singh Negi, W/o Chander Singh Negi, R/o ONGC Ltd. Mishan Project, Western Region, Gujrat. 8. Km. Nisha Singh, D/o Late Mr. Chander Singh Negi, R/o 388/661, Rajpur Road, Dehradun. Respondents. Mr. Arvind Vashihst, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sudhir Kumar, Brief Holder for the respondent No.1. None for the respondent Nos. 2 to 8. Date December 14, 2009. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 06-02-2004 passed by the Additional District Judge/ F.T.C. II Dehradun in Original Suit No. 376 of 2000, Man Mohan Singh Vs. Uma Devi whereby the application 96 C-2 moved by the petitioner has been rejected. Briefly stated the facts of the case, according to the petitioner the suit was filed by the petitioner before the Civil Judge (Senior Division) Dehradun, which was numbered as 376 of 2000, Man Mohan Singh Vs. Smt. Uma Devi and others for permanent injunction against 2 the respondent No. 2 to 7 for restraining him to interfere in peaceful possession of the petitioner/plaintiff. According to the petitioner in property in dispute, there are some tenants. By means of this application the prayer was made that the respondent No. 4 be directed to evict the tenement in question so that the partition between the plaintiff and respondent be affected. The learned Trial Court after considering the objections filed by the defendant has held that there is no tenant of respondent No.4 in the alleged premises. The tenement in question was rented by Smt. Tulsi Devi in is lifetime. Now respondent Nos. 5 and 7 are receiving the rent and this fact was also admitted by the respondent Nos. 5 and 7. I have perused the order impugned and material on record. The suit has not been filed against tenants and they are not interfere in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff/petitioner. The learned Trial court has rejected the application of the plaintiff and gave a finding that there is no tenant of respondent No.4 and the respondent No.4 cannot be directed to evict the tenants. In view of discussions made in foregoing paragraphs, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. The writ petition is dismissed. All pending applications stand disposed of accordingly. (B.S. Verma,J) MK 14-12-2009