IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No. 610 of 2010 Smt. Kamlesh Durga W/O Sri Devendra Durga, R/O 59, Vijay Park Extension, Lane No. 3, Dehradun. … Petitioner. Versus 1. Smt. Janki Singh, W/O Sri Gopal Singh, R/O Village Chandrabani Choyala, Near Byword Life Institute, Dehradun. 2. Doon Housing Private Ltd., 10 Alipur Road, New Delhi, through its Director. 3. Gaon Sabha Aakediya Grant, Pargana Kendradoon, District Dehradun, through its Village Pradhan. 4. State of Uttarakhand, through Collector Dehradun. … Respondents. Mr. Lok Pal Singh, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Piyush Garg, Advocate, learned counsel for the respondent No.1-caveator. Mr. K.P.Upadhyay, learned Addl. C.S.C. for the respondent no.4. Date April 30, 2010. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. (Stay Application No. 3008 of 2010) Learned counsel for both the parties agreed that this writ petition be decided today without inviting counter affidavit. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 1-12-2009 (Annexure-6 to the petition) and the order dated 19-4-2010 (Annexure-7 to the petition). By the order dated 1-12-2009, the application filed under Order 9, Rule 7 CPC to set aside the ex parte order dated 15-1-2007 was dismissed by the Assistant Collector concerned. By order dated 15-1-2007, the suit was ordered to proceed ex parte against the defendant-petitioner By the order dated 19-4-2010, the Additional Chief Revenue Commissioner Uttarakhand dismissed the revision petition No. 99 of 2009-10, which was filed against the order dated 1-12-2009 by the petitioner. 2 A perusal of record shows that the respondent Smt. Janki Singh filed a Revenue Suit No. 43 of 2002-03 (new No. 10 of 2005-06) against the respondent no.2 under Section 229-B of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R.Act for declaration of her rights. The petitioner was impleaded as defendant no. 4 to the suit, on the application moved by the respondent for amendment. After amendment in the plaint, the trial court directed to issue notice to the petitioner but the same was not served upon her. The grievance of the petitioner is that without due process of law on the first day, the application of the plaintiff was allowed to serve the petitioner by way of publication and the publication was made on wrong address, as contended by the petitioner. The suit has wrongly been ordered to proceed ex parte against the petitioner-defendant no.4. The application moved by the petitioner under Order 9, Rule 7 CPC was dismissed vide order dated 1-12-2009 passed by the Assistant Collector, Dehradun on the ground of delay in filing the application. According to the petitioner, when she came to know on 14-6-2008 that the suit is pending, she had filed the application for setting aside the ex parte order dated 15-1-2007 on 19-8-2008 without any further delay with a prayer for supply of copy of plaint and one month’s time to file written statement. In support of the application, affidavit was also filed to explain delay. Since the suit is pending for disposal before the Assistant Collector and if the suit is allowed to be decided ex parte without defence version of the defendant-petitioner, her valuable right would be affected, therefore, in the interest of justice, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside. The writ petition deserves to be allowed. The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 1-12-2009 passed by the trial court and the order dated 19-4- 3 2010 passed by the revisional court (Annexures 6 and 7 to the petition) are set aside. The application of the petitioner, moved under Order 9, Rule 7 C.P.C. (Annexure-4 to the petition) before the trial court is allowed subject to payment of cost of Rs. 1000/-, payable to Mr. Piyush Garg, Advocate, for the plaintiff-respondent no.1. Cost be paid within a week. The plaintiff-respondent is directed to supply the copy of the plaint along with all documents to the petitioner through her counsel appearing in the trial court. The petitioner shall file her written statement within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of copy of plaint. The Assistant Collector First Class Mussoorie (Dehradun) shall decide the suit No. 43 of 2002-03 (new No. 10 of 2005-06) Smt. Janki Singh Vs. Doon Housing Pvt. Ltd. and others on merits in accordance with law after hearing both the parties, expeditiously as far as possible, preferably within a period of one year. Both the parties shall co-operate in the speedy disposal of the suit. ( B.S.Verma, J.) RCP 4