IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 303 of 2008 (M/S) Mustakeem S/o Late Sri Zahur Khan R/o Ibrahimpur alias Abidpur Bhaktanpur, Tehsil Roorkee District Haridwar. ………Petitioner Versus 1. Mahendra Singh S/o Sri Moti Singh R/o Srinath Nagar, Jwalapur Pargana Jwalapur, Tehsil Haridwar District Haridwar. 2. Civil Judge (Senior Division) Haridwar. 3. District Judge, Haridwar. ….Respondents. Shri M.C. Pande, Advocate for the petitioner. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. By means of this petition, moved under Article 226 read with 227 of Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 28.03.2003, and order dated 19.04.2005, passed by the trial court (Civil Judge, Sr. Div., Haridwar), in suit No. 83 of 1996, and Misc. Case No. 07 of 2003. The petitioner has further sought writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 01.12.2007, passed 2 by District Judge, Haridwar, in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 74 of 2007. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. Brief facts of the case are that suit No. 83 of 1996, was filed by respondent Mahendra Singh against the petitioner Mustkeem, for specific performance of contract. Summons were issued in said suit and the defendant (present petitioner) did not turn up in the proceedings of the suit. The suit proceeded exparte and finally decreed on 21.08.2000. Thereafter in the year 2001, the petitioner (defendant) moved application under Order IX Rule 13 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which was registered as Misc. Case No. 30 of 2001, Mustkeem Vs. Mahendra Singh. Said case after hearing the parties, was decided vide impugned order dated 25.01.2003, whereby the trial court allowed the application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code on the condition that the defendant shall pay cost of Rs. 1,000/- to the plaintiff. However, it appears that the defendant did not comply the condition, mentioned in the order and the suit stood remained decreed exparte, as directed by the trial court, vide its judgment and decree dated 21.08.2000. Thereafter, the petitioner moved an application for extension of time for payment of the costs, before the trial court 3 under Section 148 read with Section 151 of C.P.C., which was registered as Misc. Case No. 07 of 2003. After hearing the parties, the said application for extension of time was rejected by the trial court, vide its impugned order dated 19.04.2005. On this, the petitioner, filed Appeal from Order No. 341 of 2005, before this Court. Said Appeal from Order, was dismissed by this Court vide its order fated 27.07.2005, as not maintainable. Finally, the petitioner filed Misc. Civil Appeal No. 74 of 2007, before the District Judge, Haridwar, against the order dated 19.04.2005, passed by the trial court, rejecting the application, moved under Section 148 read with Section 151 C.P.C. Said appellate court after hearing the parties, found that the trial court has committed no error of law in rejecting the application, as it was moved only to linger the proceedings of the case. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the impugned order dated 01.12.2007, passed by District Judge, Haridwar, and also the orders dated 28.03.2003 and 19.04.2005, passed by the trial court. From the papers on record, and after going through the impugned order, this Court is in agreement with the trial court and the lower appellate court that the defendant 4 (present petitioner) has made every effort to linger the proceedings of the suit. 5. The writ petition is devoid of merits. The same is dismissed summarily. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt:23.09.2009 Sweta