IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No.662 of 2010 (M/S) Baba Bhupendra Giri .…Petitioner Versus Smt. Madhu Sharma @ Madhu Giri & another ...Respondents Mr. Neeraj Garg, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Piyush Garg, Advocate for respondent no.1. Mr. Ravi Babulkar, Advocate for respondent no.2. Hon’ble V.K. Bist, J. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 19.04.2010 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun in Municipal Appeal No.07 of 2009 Madhu Giri vs. Nagar Palika Parishad & another, whereby learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun stayed the operation and effect of order dated 02.07.2009 passed by Municipal Board, Rishikesh. Brief facts, relevant to the present petition, are that Baba Bhagwangiri was the owner of land situated at Maya Kund, Rishikesh by virtue of sale deed dated 19.03.1984. Baba Bhagwan Giri died on 07.04.1986 at Rishikesh. After the death of Baba Bhagwan Giri his Samadhi was established at the property in dispute. The name of respondent no.1 was recorded in Nagar Palika record in respect of property in dispute in the year 1987. In the year 2008 the petitioner 2 instituted O.S. No.33 of 2008 for permanent injunction against respondent no.1 in the court of Civil Judge (Sr.Div.), Dehradun. The petitioner also filed an application for grant of temporary injunction, to which respondent no.1 filed her objection and the learned trial court vide order dated 19.03.2009 rejected the application of the petitioner for grant of temporary injunction. The petitioner preferred Misc. Appeal No.66 of 2009 against the rejection of his temporary injunction application in the court of learned District Judge, which is pending. The petitioner also filed objection before the Nagar Palika Parishad, Rishikesh for deleting the name of respondent no.1 and also for recording the name of Baba Bhagwan Giri. The Nagar Palika Parishad, Rishikesh vide order dated 02.07.2009 ordered for deletion of the name of respondent no.1 and directed for recording the name of Baba Bhagwan Giri against the property. Against the order dated 02.07.2009 the respondent no.1 preferred a Municipal Appeal before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun which was numbered as Municipal Appeal No.07 of 2009. Respondent no.1 also filed an interim application along with the appeal praying for stay of the operation of the order dated 02.07.2009 passed by Nagar Palika Parishad, Rishikesh. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun in his order dated 10.08.2009 observed that it would be in the interest of justice that before passing any order on the said application paper no.6-A of respondent no.1 it would be desirable to hear the petitioner and Nagar Palika Parishad, Rishikesh. He issued notice to the opposite parties and fixed 17.08.2009. The matter was again listed on 17.08.2009, 27.08.2009, 3 18.09.2009 and 12.10.2009. Thereafter on 11.12.2009 the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun recorded in his order that notices have sufficiently been served upon the respondents and fixed 18.02.2010. On 18.02.2010 the petitioner remained absent and learned court fixed 09.04.2010 for objection/hearing in the interim application. Again on 09.04.2010 the petitioner remained absent and the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun fixed 28.04.2010 for objection/hearing on the interim application. Thereafter, on 13.04.2010 the respondent no.1 filed an application alongwith the affidavit before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun and prayed for grant of interim relief mentioning therein that petitioner is trying to take advantage of the order dated 02.07.2009 passed by Nagar Palika Parishad, Rishikesh which is impugned in the Municipal Appeal. In the said application respondent no.1 also submitted that during the pendency of Municipal Appeal the petitioner filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. on 05.10.2009 in the Misc. Civil Appeal No.66 of 2009 for taking on record, a copy of the order dated 02.07.2009 passed by Nagar Palika Parishad, Rishikesh. On 13.04.2010 the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun passed following order:- ßvihykFkhZ }kjk foi{khx.k la0 1 ds }kjk ikfjr vkns’k fnukad 02-07-2009 ds fdz;kUo;u dks nkSjkus vihy LFkfxr djus gsrq izkFkZuki= fn;k x;kA vihykFkhZ ds fo)ku vf/koDrk dks lquk x;k i=koyh okLrs vfxze vkns’k fnukad 19-04-2010 dks is’k gksAÞ On 19.04.2010 the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate decided 6-A application and stayed the operation of the order 4 dated 02.07.2009 passed by Nagar Palika Parishad. Aggrieved by the said order present wit petition is filed. The only argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that while deciding 6-A application on 19.04.2010 the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun did not hear the petitioner and order was passed without giving opportunity of hearing to him. He argued that such ex- parte order should not have been passed on 19.04.2010 especially when 28.04.2010 was fixed for objection/disposal of 6-A application. Learned counsel for respondent no.1, on the other hand, argued that petitioner cannot be permitted to complain especially when he himself remained absent on various dates. He further submitted that order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun is just and correct. He also argued that in case order dated 19.04.2010 is set aside, the same will amount to revival of an illegal order passed by the Nagar Palika Parishad, Rishikesh. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and after examining the papers available on record, I find that on 09.04.2010 the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate fixed 28.04.2010 for objection/hearing of 6-A application but by preponing the same, the said 6-A application was heard on 19.04.2010 and order was passed. So far as preponment of the date is concerned, the same can be done by the court at any stage but the disposal of the application should always be done after proper notice/hearing to the other side. 5 Preponement of the case without proper notice to other side and hearing/disposal of particular application, without hearing to other side is against the principle of natural justice. Even in judicial proceedings principle of natural justice must be followed. In the present case, the petitioner was not heard and order was passed on 19.04.2010. The petitioner had valid reason to believe that application 6-A would be heard and decided on 28.04.2010. In my view in the present case the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun erred in passing order on 19.04.2010. In view of above discussion, the writ petition is allowed. Order dated 19.04.2010 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun in Municipal Appeal No.07 of 2009 is quashed. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun is directed to hear the application no.6-A on 7th July, 2010. The petitioner is permitted to file his objection against application 6-A before 7th July before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun. Parties are directed to appear before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun on 7th July, 2010. It is made clear that this petition is being allowed only on the ground that petitioner was not heard by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun will decide the application afresh in accordance with law without being influenced by the observation made in this order. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun is also directed to decide Municipal Appeal No.07 of 2009 expeditiously on merit after hearing both the parties. 6 Let a certified copy of the order be given to the counsel for the parties on payment of usual charges within 24 hours. (V.K.Bist. J,) 28.06.2010 Arti 7