IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL A.O. No. 381 of 2008 M/s Metropole Hills Hotels Pvt. Ltd. ……. Appellant Versus Raja Mohammed Amir Mohammed and another …….. Respondents ………. Mr. C. Mukund and Mrs. Beena Pande, Advocates for the Appellant. Mr. Niraj Gupta and Mr. Ajay Veer Pundir, Advocates for respondent no. 1. Mr. Arvind Vashistha, Assistant Solicitor General for respondent no. 2. Hon’ble V.K. GUPTA, C. J. In this appeal filed under Order 43 Rule 1(r) read with Section 104 C.P.C., the petitioner has challenged the order dated 08.08.2008 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nainital, whereby, the petitioner’s application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 C.P.C. for the grant of Temporary Injunction has been rejected. The learned Trial Court, while rejecting the Temporary Injunction Application went by her finding that the plaintiff-appellant had failed to establish a prima facie case in its favour. Through the medium of the aforesaid Temporary Injunction Application, plaintiff-appellant had made a two fold prayer in the Trial Court; firstly, to re-induct the appellant into the property in question and secondly(alternatively)to restrain respondent no. 1 from alienating the property or creating any third party interest with respect thereto. By the impugned order, both the prayers were declined. Since the suit is pending between the parties, it shall not be desirable for me to dwell into the details of the controversy forming the subject matter of this petition, but suffice it to say that, first and foremost, appellant’s eviction, rightly or wrongly, illegally or legally, was brought about as a sequel to the direction contained in Para 34 of the Supreme Court Judgment in the case of Union of India and another Vs. Raja Mohammed Amir Mohammad Khan reported in (2005) 8 SCC 696. What 2 did their Lordships of the Supreme Court actually mean by issuing the direction contained in Para 34 (supra) was further clarified by a clarificatory order dated 08th September, 2006. In this clarificatory order, their Lordships of the Supreme Court very clearly held and observed, by creating two sets/ classes of occupants, that such persons who were inducted and allotted properties by the Custodian or who came in possession of the properties after 1965 were not protected against their dispossession. The protection against dispossession was available only to such persons who were inducted as tenants, based upon a duly authenticated tenancy created by the then Raja Mahmudabad or his General Power of Attorney. The learned Trial Court, while refusing to grant Temporary Injunction, has returned a clear finding that the appellant could not be deemed or termed to be a tenant falling in the second category because the appellant could not prove or establish that it was inducted as a tenant by Raja Mahmudabad or his General Power of Attorney pre 1965. The learned Trial Court was of the view that the appellant came into possession of the property as a tenant post 1965 and thus, was not entitled to the protection against dispossession. Without trying to influence the learned Trial Court in the disposal of the pending suit, I find myself to be in agreement with the aforesaid view of the Trial Court, based upon my own appreciation of the pleadings as well as the documents on record. I find that this is not a case where based upon the facts and circumstances, the appellant could either be put in possession of the property by way of Temporary Injunction or a restraint order can be issued against respondent no. 1. The appeal is dismissed. Before parting, I do wish to observe and point out that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case a very very expeditious disposal of the suit is not only in the interest of the parties, but would also meet the ends of justice. I was informed that despite the suit being pending for almost three years, the issues have not been framed so far. This reflects a very sorry and sad state of affairs. I direct the Trial Court that henceforth all possible 3 steps shall be taken by it towards very very expeditious disposal of the suit. Adjournments of not more than a fortnight shall be granted towards the progress of the suit. No unnecessary adjournment shall be granted to any party on any ground or for any reason. The Trial Court shall make a sincere endeavour to ensure that the suit is disposed of very very expeditiously and under all circumstances in the year 2009. It goes without saying that no observation made by me in the course of this order nor any observation made by the Trial Court in the course of the impugned order shall be construed as any expression of opinion about merits of the suit. The suit shall be disposed of on its own merits and in accordance with law uninfluenced by any such observation which should be treated to have been made for the limited purpose of disposal of Temporary Injunction Application. (V. K. Gupta, C. J.) 22.12.2008 A