IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 154 of 2010 (M/S) Mahesh Yadav S/o Late Shri Rampal Yadav ..……… Petitioner Versus Smt. Chandrakala W/o Late Shri Tej Bahadur Thapa and others ……… Respondents. Mr. Sudhir Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Lok Pal Singh, Advocate for the respondent No.1. Mr. R.C. Arya, Brief Holder for the State. Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J. The suit of the plaintiff u/S 229-B of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 was decreed. Against this decree, the opposite party filed an appeal which has been dismissed. Subsequently, the opposite party filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 before the decreetal Court for the recall of the decree. This application is pending consideration. In the meantime, the plaintiff filed the present writ petition praying that the application under Order 9 Rule 13, being misconceived, should be quashed since the decree has already been affirmed by the Appellate Court. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the opposite party submitted that the appellate order dismissing his appeal has been recalled and the appeal has been restored to its original number. Be that as it may. This Court is not inclined to interfere in the proceedings at this stage and disposes of the writ petition with the direction to the respondent No.4-Assistant Collector to decide the application under Order 9 Rule 13 after hearing all parties concerned within three months from the date of the production of a certified copy of this order. (Tarun Agarwala, J.) Dated 05.07.2010 Shiv 2