THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARANCHAL AT NAINITAL. Writ Petition (MS) No. 169 of 2006 Anil Tyagi, S/O Shri S.S. Tyagi, R/O 996, Indira Nagar, Dehradun, District Dehradun. … Petitioner. Versus 1. Civil Judge, (Junior Division), Dehradun, 2. Smt. Lata Singh, W/O Shri V.P.Singh, R/O 47, Indira Nagar Colony, Dehradun, District Dehradun. … Respondents. Sri Ramji Srivastava, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents No.1. Dated February 28, 2006. PC: (Hon’ble B.S. Verma, J.) The petitioner has filed the present writ petition for issue of a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no.1 to decide the Original Suit No. 106 of 2005, Smt. Lata Singh Vs. Anil Tyagi, pending disposal in the court of respondent no1as early as possible. Heard Sri Ramji Srivastava learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the order-sheet of the suit. The suit has been filed by the respondent no.2 Lata Singh against the petitioner in the year 2005. It reveals from the order-sheet that whenever the plaintiff sought for adjournment, the defendant-petitioner never opposed the adjournment. On 6-9-2005, the adjournment was not opposed. Similarly, on 10-11-2005 and 12-12-2005 adjournments were sought by the plaintiff, which was not opposed. On 4.1.2006, the adjournment was sought by the defendant-petitioner himself. That was not opposed by the plaintiff. On 8-2-2006, the 2 adjournment was sought by the plaintiff but it was not opposed by the defendant-petitioner. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it is not a fit case to issue a mandamus to the respondent no.1 to decide the case expeditiously, particularly when the defendant-petitioner himself had so many times not opposed the adjournments sought by the plaintiff. The petitioner-defendant may oppose the applications for adjournments as and when moved by the plaintiff-respondent in the suit. The writ petition is dismissed in-limine. (B.S. Verma, J.) RCP