IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No. 02 of 2003 Vipin Kumar Verma. …… Petitioner. Versus State & Another. ..…. Respondent Mr. R.P. Nautiyal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vinay Kumar, Advocate for respondent no. 2. Hon’ble V.K. Gupta, C.J. Mr. Vinay Kumar, Advocate appearing for respondent no. 02 submits that h objection if the impugned order is set aside. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I also feel that the impugn infact, does deserve to be set aside. The petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 23rd December, 2002 p the Civil Judge (Junior Devision), Rudraprayag is set aside. As a consequence of th aside of the impugned order it is directed that status quo as is existing today with r the possession qua the shop in question shall be maintained by the parties. The suit has been pending unnecessarily for a long time. The learned trial directed to proceed with the suit with utmost despatch and take all steps for ensurin is disposed of very very expeditiously. The petition is disposed of finally. No order as to costs. (V.K. Gupta, C. J.) 15.09.2008 V.K.