IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Stay Application No.11543 of 2009 In Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2238 of 2009 Trilok Ram, S/o Late Kishan Ram, Representative Village Wasiyan Village, Mankatiya Patti Madsoan, Tehsil and District Pithoragarh. Petitioner. Versus 1. Public Works Department Pithoragarh, through Executive Officer, Public Work Department, Pithoragarh. 2. State of Uttarakhand through Collector Pithoragarh. 3. Gram Sabha Mankatiya, Through Gram Pradhan Gram Sabha Mankatiya, Patti Madsoan, Tehsil and District Pithoragarh. Respondents. Mr. G.D. Joshi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. N.P. Shah, Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. Date 17-02-2010 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 12-11-2009 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division) Pithoragarh whereby the interim relief application 6C2 moved by the plaintiff has been rejected and the order dated 24-12-2009 passed in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 25 of 2009, Trilok Ram Vs. P.W.D. and others preferred under Section 43 Rule 1 (R) has also been rejected by the District Judge, Pithoragarh. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff has filed the suit in the representative capacity on behalf of the villagers for restraining the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 not to construct the motor road from Chimangaon to Jalturi. 2 Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Pithoragarh has not found any prima facie case and balance of convenience in favour of the plaintiff. I have perused both the orders impugned. The learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) has held that this motor road has been constructed on the public property and property of villagers are not going to be effected and the villagers have no objections on this. The plaintiff has filed the suit in the representative capacity. The proposal was made by the State Government and tenders were floated and thereafter budget was allotted, if the interim injunction application is allowed then the irreparable loss would occur to the respondent. It appears that in the suit, the compliance of Order 1 Rule 8 of C.P.C. has not been made by the plaintiff. It is made clear if the compliance of Order 1 Rule 8 of C.P.C. has not been made by the plaintiff only suit will proceed after the compliance of provision of Order 1 Rule 8 of C.P.C. , I find no irregularity and perversity in the impugned orders. The writ petition is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. All pending applications stand disposed of accordingly. (B.S. Verma,J) MK 17-02-2010