IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.83 of 2010 Date of decision : August 3, 2010 Bharat Bhushan Sood …Petitioner. Versus Tribhuwan Kumar Sood …Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Adarsh Kumar Vashista, Advocate. Surjit Singh, J (Oral) Petitioner has filed a suit against the defendant- respondent. That suit is pending since 1996. The suit is for issuance of permanent prohibitory injunction, restraining defendant-respondent, who is a brother of the plaintiff- petitioner, from making any changes in the ground floor of the building, which is in his (respondent’s) occupation, as the house is still joint. He also filed an application for temporary injunction, which was allowed by the trial Court. Appeal was filed by the defendant-respondent against that order. Learned District Judge modified that order and directed that the changes may be made, but without causing any damage to the upper storey of the building, occupied by the plaintiff-petitioner. Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… 2. In 2003, petitioner filed an application, under Order 39 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, in the trial Court, alleging that changes had been effected by the defendant-respondent, after the passing of the order by the Appellate Court, in such a manner that the upper storey of the building, occupied by the petitioner, was damaged. That application was dismissed by the trial Court, with the observation that the same had not been pressed. Petitioner felt aggrieved by that order and filed appeal before the District Judge. Learned District Judge dismissed that appeal, with the observation that the right course was to move the trial Court for restoring the application, which was dismissed by the trial Court, with the observation that the same had not been pressed. Thereafter, the petitioner moved an application before the trial Court for restoration of the application, which had been dismissed, as not pressed. Learned trial Court dismissed that application. It is against this order, that the present petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, has been filed. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 4. Alleged changes on the ground floor had been made, pursuant to the modified order of the learned District Judge, in 2003, or say about seven years back. Civil suit, itself, has been pending since 1996. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I …3… am of the view that interest of justice would be better served, if the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the trial Court to dispose of the main suit, itself, at the earliest possible and in any case before 31st December, 2010. It is ordered accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of, having become infructuous. Parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on 23rd August, 2010. Records be returned immediately. August 3, 2010(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J