IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 1740 of 2006 (M/S) Sri Charanjeet Batra & another. .……… Petitioners Versus The District Judge & others. .……… Respondents Mr. S.K. Jain, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Arvind Vashishth, Advocate for respondents Nos. 2, 4 & 5. Hon’ble V.K. Gupta, C.J. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the impugned judgment as well as the original plaint, the original written statement and the amendment sought to be introduced, I feel convinced that it was only by way of a clarification in para 6 of the original plaint that the plaintiffs wanted the amendment. Indeed para 6 of the original plaint was so badly drafted that it left plentiful scope for vagueness as well as ambiguity. By way of the amendment, the plaintiffs wanted the vagueness and the ambiguity to be removed. The amendment did not, in any manner, change the nature of the case nor the relief claimed by the plaintiffs. The relief remained the same. Mr. Arvind Vashishth, learned counsel appearing for the respondents / plaintiffs states before me that neither any additional issue is required to be framed nor would the plaintiffs lead any additional evidence consequent upon the amendment being allowed. The defendants in the suit shall file amended written statement within two weeks from today. It is indeed a pity, a shame that a simple money suit for a paltry sum has been pending disposal for more than 1½ decades. Whether the delay is attributable to the plaintiffs or the defendants, the fact remains that the court became a mute spectator in this protracted delay in the disposal of the Suit. 2 Even while I am dismissing this writ petition, I direct the trial court to dispose of the Suit very, very expeditiously and, in any event, within two months from the date of communication of this order. (V.K. Gupta, C. J.) 14.07.2008 G