IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No.272 of 2009 (M/S) Ayyub Khan …Petitioner Versus Naseem Ahmad Pundir … Respondents Mr. Lok Pal Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. A.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent. Hon’ble V.K. Bist, J. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner filed suit for specific performance bearing O.S. No.209/1984 Ayyub Khan vs. Kehar Singh & another in the Court of Civil Judge/Senior Division, Roorkee, Haridwar. On account of death of defendant no.2 the learned trial court passed order dated 06.02.1991 and suit was abated under order 22 Rule 4 of C.P.C. Thereafter the application for setting aside the abatement was moved which was also dismissed by the learned trial court on 22.03.1995. Thereafter a misc. application was preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 22.03.1995 which was dismissed on 06.03.1996. Aggrieved by the orders dated 06.02.1991, 22.03.1995 and order dated 06.03.1996 the petitioner filed writ petition no.20323/1996 before the Allahabad High Court which was transferred to this Court and renumbered as writ petition no.7423 of 2001 (M/S). On 28.07.2005 the writ petition was allowed. The order of abatement was set aside and 2 application for substitution was allowed. The High Court also directed the trial court to permit the petitioner/plaintiff to incorporate the necessary amendment within two weeks from that date. The petitioner applied for the certified copy of the order dated 28.07.2005 which was delivered to his counsel on 17.08.2005 i.e. after the period fixed by this Court. Thereafter the counsel for the petitioner sent copy to the petitioner and same was filed before the trial court on 08.09.2005. Since there was specific direction of the High Court to the trial court to permit the petitioner/plaintiff to incorporate the necessary amendment within two weeks from that day, prayer of the petitioner/plaintiff was rejected by the trial court on 24.01.2009 on the ground that two weeks time granted by the High Court expired before filing of the application. Aggrieved by the order dated 24.01.2009 present writ petition has been field. Heard learned counsel for the parties. It appears that the certified copy of the order dated 28.07.2005 was made available to the counsel for the petitioner on 17.08.2005 and petitioner was not responsible for the delay in moving the application before the learned trial court. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that there is no explanation for the delay from 17.08.2005 to 08.09.2005, the date when the certified copy of the order was placed before the trial court. Learned counsel for the 3 petitioner replied and stated that the certified copy of the order was sent by post and it was postal delay due to which application was filed on 08.09.2005. In any case, the petitioner was not responsible for the delay in filing certified copy of the order before the trial court and in any event he was not in a position to file the same within a period of two weeks as certified copy of the order was delivered to the counsel for the petitioner after two weeks. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that the petitioner was not responsible for the delay in filing the certified copy of the order before the trial court. Order dated 24.01.2009 passed by Additional Civil Judge (J.D.), Roorkee is quashed. The petitioner is permitted to incorporate the necessary amendment within a period of two weeks from today. With these observations, the writ petition is allowed. (Stay application no.1340 of 2009 stands disposed of). (V.K.Bist. J,) 12.03.2010 Arti 4