HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No.484/2010 (M/S) M/s Kwality Restaurant. ….Petitioner. Versus Union Bank of India. ….Respondents. Shri D. Barthwal and Smt. Mamta Joshi, Advocates for the petitioner. Shri Arvind Vashishtha, Advocate for respondent. Dated: April 8, 2010 Hon’ble V.K. Bist, J. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2. Present petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the Court of Addl. District Judge/F.T.C.-1st, Dehradun to hear and decide the SCC Suit No.3 of 2003 titled as ‘M/s Kwality Restaurant vs. Union Bank of India’, as expeditiously as possible. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the aforesaid SCC suit was instituted in the year 2003 and due to one or other reason the same could not be decided, though 7 years have passed (certified copy of the order sheet of the SCC suit has been annexed as annexure no.4 to the writ petition). He submitted that Sri M.M.K. Ghai, who is as senior citizen aged about 72 years is partner in petitioner’s restaurant and is representing the petitioner. He also drew my attention to this Court’s order dated 19.09.2006 pass in Writ Petition No. 1392 (M/S) of 2006 by which this Court directed the Judge S.C.C./Addl. District Judge/VIII FTC, Dehradun to decide SCC Suit No. 3 of 2003, expeditiously, on merits in accordance with law, preferably within a period of one year from the date of production of certified copy of this order. It was further directed that both the parties shall co-coperate with the Court concerned in expeditious disposal of the said SCC suit. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that certified copy of the order dated 19.06.2006 passed in said writ petition was produced in the Court concerned on 26.09.2006, but hearing of the pending case could not be completed due to the fact that record of the SCC suit was summoned by the High Court in Civil Revision No. 33 of 2007. He further submitted that now the said revision has finally been decided on 20.11.2008. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner prayed that since the SCC suit is lying pending before the Trial Court for the last seven years and it is listed for hearing before the 1st FTC/Addl. District Judge, Dehradun, directions may be issued to the Presiding Officer of the Court concerned to decide the said suit as expeditiously as possible. 6. In this context Sri Arvind Vashishtha, the learned counsel for the respondent pointed out that hearing of the case could not be done for the reason that the said Fast Track Court is vacant since January, 2010. 7. In reply to the objection raised by the counsel for the respondent, Sri D. Barthwal, the learned counsel for the petitioner prayed that the learned District Judge, Dehradun may be directed to assign the aforesaid case to any other competent Court. At this, Sri Arvind Vashishtha, the learned counsel for the respondent further raised objection that this prayer cannot be allowed as for seeking transfer of any case from one Court to another, the petitioner should move a transfer application before the District Judge, Dehradun, because the District Judge itself will be in position to decide the same. 8. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, liberty is given to the petitioner to move an appropriate transfer application before the District Judge, Dehradun for seeking transfer of the said case for the Court of Addl. District Judge/F.T.C.-1st, Dehradun. In case, if such transfer application is moved within 15 days from today, the District Judge, Dehradun shall decide the same within a period of one week from the date of filing such application. In the event if the case is transferred to any other competent Court, the Court concerned is directed to decide the SCC suit No.3 of 2003 ‘M/s Kwality Restaurant vs. Union Bank of India’, very-very expeditiously preferably within a period of three months from the date the matter is received by transfer to its Court. In any case, the whole exercise shall be completed within a period of four months from today. 9. With these directions, the writ petition is finally disposed of. No order as to costs. (V.K. Bist, J.) 08.04.2010 NCM: