IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1266 of 2011 Selakui Pachwadoon Truck Owner Welfare Association (Registered) Office Main Market, Selakui, District Dehradun through Secretary Mohammad Sultan. … Petitioner. Versus Dehradun Transport Nagar Samiti, Registered Office F-88, Transport Nagar, Dehradun Uttarakhand through Secretary Sri Anil Sharma. … Respondent. Mr. K.N.Joshi and Mr. Gopal Narain, Advocates, learned counsel for the petitioner. Date June 24, 2011. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. (Stay Application No. 6236 of 2011) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought a writ, order or direction for setting aside the impugned order dated 25-5-2011 (Annexure-7 to the petition) passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Dehradun in Original Suit No. 37 of 2011 on the temporary injunction application (paper no. 6-C2) moved by the plaintiff-respondent and the order dated 21-6-2011 (Annexure No. 9 to the petition) passed by the District Judge Dehradun, whereby the urgency application filed by the petitioner- defendant under Rule 13 of the General Rules (Civil) has been rejected. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the respondent-plaintiff filed a suit (O.S. No. 37 of 2011) against the defendant-petitioner for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from stopping the truck of the transporters attached to the plaintiff-respondent and their entry in the Selakui industrial area and restraining the defendant from illegally loading and unloading those trucks. Along with the suit, the plaintiff-respondent also filed an application for temporary injunction. The petitioner-defendant put in appearance before the trial court and sought adjournment to file objection against the 2 temporary injunction application for a period of 15 days. The learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Dehradun considering the fact that the civil courts are going to the closed on summer vacations from 1st June to 30th June 2011, by order dated 25-5-2011, granted ex parte temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff-respondent and restrained the defendant from interfering in the free plying of the trucks of the plaintiff in Selakui area as mentioned in the order. The defendant has been further directed not to charge any money illegally from the said trucks for their transportation. Earlier, aggrieved by this order, the petitioner filed a writ petition (W.P.M.S. No. 1210 of 2011) before this Court and this Court by order dated 16-6-2011, directed the petitioner to invoke the alternate remedy of filing appeal under Order 43, Rule 1(r) of the C.P.C. before the District Judge concerned by filing an application under Rule 13 of the General Rules (Civil). Thereafter, the petitioner approached the District Judge Dehradun and the learned District Judge, after hearing the petitioner at length has come to the conclusion that the petitioner itself sought adjournment on the date fixed for 15 days and no order was made to restrain the trucks of the petitioner association to carry out its business. Learned appellate court has observed that now only 9 days are left of the summer vacations. The learned appellate court by order dated 21- 6-2011 has also observed that no restraining order has been passed on the business of the defendant-appellant, therefore, there is no urgency to entertain the appeal and the appeal was not entertained under Rule 13 of the General Rules (Civil). Aggrieved by the said order dated 21-6-2011, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition. I have perused the impugned orders passed by the District Judge Dehradun as well as the order dated 25-5-2011 passed by the trial court. The temporary injunction application could not be disposed on merits without hearing on objection. Since there are so many disputed questions of fact and some disputes have already arisen between the plaintiff and the defendant-petitioner. In my view, since the summer vacation is 3 expiring on 30th June, 2011, no prejudice is going to be caused to the petitioner if the temporary injunction application is disposed of merits. The learned appellate court has already observed in its order that the no restraining order has been passed against the petitioner-appellant by the impugned order on the business of the petitioner. The impugned orders do not call for any interference by this Court. The writ petition being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed at the threshold. The writ petition is dismissed summarily. However, the petitioner may file its detailed objection before the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Dehradun and may also file all those documents on which the petitioner-defendant relies upon. The temporary injunction application moved by the plaintiff-respondent shall be disposed of on merits by the trial court expeditiously without further delay in the matter, after considering the objection of the petitioner. Unnecessary adjournments shall be avoided and both the parties shall co-operate in the speedy disposal of the temporary injunction application. All pending applications stand disposed of. (B.S.Verma, J.) RCP