HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 382/2010 (M/S) Sarika Gupta. …Petitioner Versus Bhagresh Devi and another. …Respondents Shri B.S. Adhikari, Advocate for the petitioner, Dated: March 25, 2010 Hon’ble V.K. Bist, J. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 2. Supplementary affidavit filed in the Court today. Same is taken on record. 3. Present petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking direction to the opposite parties to maintain status-quo till the disposal of ad interim injunction application bearing no. 6c-2 and also for further direction to the Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Vikas Nagar, District Dehradun to expedite disposal of application 6c-2, pending in the Original Suit no. 30 of 2010 ‘Sarika Gupta vs. Smt. Bhagresh Devi and another’. 4. The facts in brief are that on 06.10.2006 the petitioner/plaintiff purchased the land in question i.e. Khasra No. 886/1 area 0.2310 hectares by virtue of registered sale deed, situated in Mauja Central Hope Town, Tehsil Vikas Nagar, District Dehradun. The name of predecessor of the petitioner was duly recorded in the revenue records and subsequently the name of petitioner was also mutated in the revenue records as Bhumidhar. It is averred in the writ petition that the petitioner is in 2 peaceful and exclusive possession of the land in question since 06.10.2006 but lateron respondent no.1 with her husband and other colleagues has tried to trespass into the property in suit. Again on 07.03.2010 the respondent no.1 with her companion tried to encroach upon the land in question. Thereafter, the petitioner instituted a Suit for permanent injunction before the Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Vikas Nagar, Dehradun with the prayer to restrain the respondents from trespassing the property in suit. The petitioner also filed an application for temporary injunction which was numbered as 6C-2. On the first date of hearing the Court below noticed that respondent no.1 has already filed a caveat application. Thus, the Court below on 08.03.2010 observed that since caveat application on behalf of respondent no.1 is filed, therefore before passing any order on the application 6C-2 it will be proper to hear the respondent/defendants. Accordingly, the Court below fixed the case on 16.03.2010 for objection/disposal of the interim injunction application. On 16.03.2010 both the parties appeared before the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Vikas Nagar, Dehradun and on that day also the Court below fixed 19.03.2010 for disposal of said application/objection. Again on 19.03.2010, the learned counsel for the plaintiff was present in the Court, but counsel for the respondents was absented. The learned Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) observed that since the lawyers were abstaining from work, in the interest of justice 23.03.2010 is being fixed in the matter. The learned Court below did not decide the application on 23.03.2010 also and again fixed 29.03.2010 for disposal of the application 6C-2 as well as the objection. 3 5. From a bare perusal of the record and the order sheet, it illustrate that the case is not being adjourned on the request either of the parties, but the learned Presiding Officer himself is not deciding the application/ objection and is fixing dates repeatedly. This Court is convinced that the practice adopted by the Court below is not proper. 6. Shri B.S. Adhikari, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that the respondents are going to start construction and for fulfilling their aim they have started collecting construction materials at the site. He submitted that in this respect the petitioner has also made complaint to the concerned Police Station on 24.03.2010. He further submitted that due to delay in disposal of the application for interim injunction, entire purpose of the suit will be frustrated. 7. For the reasons stated, the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Vikas Nagar, District Dehradun is directed to decided the interim injunction application no. 6C-2 as well as the objection thereto on the very next date fixed. 8. With this direction, the writ petition is finally disposed of. 9. Let certified copy of this order be supplied to the learned counsel for the petitioner today itself on payment of usual charges. (V.K. Bist, J.) 25.03.2010 NCM: