IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 656 of 2009 (M/S) 1. Anuj Kumar @ Raj Kumar 2. Pikendra Kumar, Both sons of Shri Vishadev Chauhan, Both R/O Village Salempur Mahdood, Pargana Jawalapur, Tehsil & District Haridwar. ……….. Petitioner. Versus Ram Nath S/O Shir Rodha, R/O Village Dauwala Khurd, Pargana Jwalapur, Tehsil & District Haridwar. ………. Respondent. Sri Lokpal Singh, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioners. Date May 04, 2009. Hon’ble B.S. Verma, J. (Stay Application No.3437 of 2009) Learned counsel for the petitioners is ready to argue the writ petition finally at the admission stage. Heard Sri Lokpal Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record. By means of this writ petition, the petitioners have sought a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned/modifying the order dated 10-04-2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Haridwar on the application moved by the plaintiff-petitioners for grant of temporary injunction in Original Suit No. 74 of 2009, Anuj Kumar and another Vs. Ram Nath whereby notice of the said application was issued to the respondent. According the petitioners, they filed a suit for permanent injunction, bearing O.S. No. 74 of 2009, Anuj Kumar and another Vs. Ram Nath in the court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) Haridwar. Along with the suit, the petitioners moved an application for temporary injunction with the prayer that the respondent be restrained not to damage the fencing of the Petitioners and he had an intention to include the Chak road in his Chak. The respondent may be restrained during the pendency of the original suit. The plaintiff-petitioners filed copies of Khatauni, Khasra and certified copy of map before the trial court. Besides, the plaintiff-petitioners moved an application under Order 26, Rule 9 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for spot inspection through advocate commissioner and the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) also issued commission on the request of the petitioners. From a perusal of the record placed before the Court it is obvious that the Advocate Commissioner also filed report on 20- 4-2009 in the suit. Having heard the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners at length, I am the considered view that there is no perversity in the impugned order passed by the trial court whereby notice of the temporary injunction was issued to the respondent. No prejudice is caused to the plaintiff-plaintiffs if the temporary injunction application is decided on merits after hearing the defendant-respondent. However, the learned Civil Judge is directed to decide the application for temporary injunction on merits after hearing both the parties (copy Annexure-4 to the writ petition) moved by the plaintiffs in the Original Suit No. 74 of 2009, Anuj Kumar alias Raj Kumar and another Vs. Ram Nath pending in that Court within a period of four weeks form the date of production of certified copy of this order. With the said direction, the writ petition is dismissed in limine. Costs easy. All pending applications stand disposed of. (B.S. Verma, J.) RCP