IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 2166 of 2008 Shri Aus Kishore Sareen & another ……… Petitioners Versus Shri Satish Kumar Jain ………. Respondent ……….. Mr. V.K. Kohli, Senior Advocate with Mr. H.M. Bhatia, Advocate for the petitioner. Hon’ble V.K. Gupta, C.J. The learned court below vide impugned order dated 25.10.2008 while allowing application under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. filed by the respondent and setting aside the ex parte decree dated 24th May 2000, imposed costs against the respondent on two counts- firstly with respect to the Delay Condonation Application and secondly, with respect to Order 9 Rule 13 Application. It, however in its discretion did not pass any order directing the respondent to deposit the decreetal amount or any part thereof. After hearing the argument of Mr. V.K. Kohli, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, I feel that in the facts and circumstances of this case there is no warrant for interference with respect to the impugned order because the learned court below has exercised its discretion properly. The petition is dismissed in limine. Before parting I do with to observe and direct that the learned trial court shall take all possible steps to ensure that the suit is disposed of very very expeditiously. (V. K. Gupta, C. J.) 17.12.2008 GPD