IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 886 of 2009 (M/S) Nagar Panchayat Laksar through its Executive Officer, Nagar Panchayat, Laksar, Tehsil-Laksar, District Haridwar. …….. Petitioner. Versus Raibahadur Narayan Singh Sugar Mills Ltd. Laksar, District Haridwar through Manager, Raibahadur Narayan Singh Sugar Mills Ltd. Laksar, District- Haridwar and three others. … Respondents. Sri Parikshit Saini, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner. Date June 18, 2009. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. (Interim Relief Application No. 4861 of 2009) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. The petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 15-6-2009 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division) Haridwar passed in Misc. Application No. nil of 2009 (Paper No. 4-A), Nagar Panchayat Laksar Vs. Raibahadur Narayan Sugar Mill, copy Annexure No.3 to the writ petition, whereby the urgency application moved under Rule 13 of the General Rules (Civil) to hear the case during vacations was rejected. A perusal of the record reveals that the petitioner Nagar Panchayat Laksar moved an application under Section 13 of the General Rules (Civil) before the Civil Judge (Senior Division) Haridwar, alleging therein that the plaintiff-petitioner intends to a suit for permanent injunction against the defendant-respondent. It has also been alleged that the opposite parties are trying to raise constructions over the public land of Khasra No. 124 of which the petitioner is the owner and the land is recorded in revenue records in the name of the petitioner. Along with the application, the applicant-petitioner filed an affidavit of the Executive Officer, 2 Nagar Panchayat Laksar stating therein that the opposite parties have collected construction material and have started raising pillars forcibly stating the land in question as that of Khasra No. 125. It has also been stated that in the permission is not granted to file the suit during the vacations of civil court, the plaintiff-petitioner would suffer irreparable injury. I have perused the order impugned passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division) Haridwar. There is no finding of the trial court whether the matter is urgent or not. Having heard the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material placed before the Court including the averments made in the affidavit filed before the Civil Judge (Senior Division) Haridwar, I find that specific statement was made in the affidavit accompanying the application under Rule 13 of the General Rules (Civil) that the defendants are trying to raise forcible constructions over the public land of Khasra No. 124 belonging to the petitioner, therefore, I am of the view that prima facie it is a case of urgency. The application under Rule 13 of the General Rules (Civil) moved by the petitioner ought to have been allowed by the trial court, the matter being urgent. The order impugned is not tenable. The writ petition, therefore, deserves to be allowed outright. The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 15-6-2009 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division Haridwar (copy Annexure-3) is set aside. The application of the petitioner under Rule 13 of the General Rules (Civil) stands allowed. The Civil Judge (Senior Division) Haridwar is directed to entertain the suit for hearing during vacations. Certified copy of this order be issued to the learned counsel for the petitioner by tomorrow on payment if usual charges. (B.S. Verma, J.) RCP