IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1270 of 2011 1. Jasveer Singh S/O Harbansh Singh R/O 103 Race Course Dehradun. 2. Devendra Pal Singh S/O Sri Harbansh Singh R/O 14/12 Race Course Dehradun. … Petitioners. Versus Nagar Nigam Dehradun through Up Nagar Adhikari, Nagar Nigam, Dehradun, District Dehradun. … Respondent. Mr. Neeraj Garg, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. H.S.Dhillon, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. S.S.Chauhan, Advocate, learned counsel for the respondent. Date June 24, 2011. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. (Interim Relief Application No. 6254 of 2011) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 21-6-2011 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division) Dehradun in Misc. Case No. 275 of 2011 Jasveer Singh and another Vs. Nagar Nigam Dehradun. From a perusal of record it is revealed that an application (paper no. 3-C) supported by an affidavit was moved before the trial court for leave of the court to file the suit during the summer vacations as provided under Rule 13 of the General Rules (Civil), asserting therein that the applicants-petitioners are the owner in possession of the property in question detailed at the foot of the plaint. It has been stated that the opposite party is threatening to demolish the property in question and a part of the property in question has already been encroached upon forcibly. The application and the plaint filed along with the application was registered as Misc. Case No. 275 of 2011 by the Civil Judge (Senior Division) Dehradun. The learned trial court in its order has observed that it is prima facie clear that the applicants have already admitted that the opposite party has already constructed shops over the property in question and the applicants have sought relief of demolition and for possession in the plaint. Ultimately, the trial court did not find 2 favour with the applicants and dismissed the application (paper no. 3-C) by order dated 21-6-2011. Aggrieved by the said order, the applicant-petitioners have filed the present writ petition mainly on the ground that the trial court has failed to consider the provision of Rule 13 of the General Rules (Civil) and the averments made in the plaint and the documents filed therewith. By a bare perusal of the impugned order it reveals that the applicant-petitioners themselves have sought a relief of mandatory injunction to demolish the illegal construction of shop made by the opposite party-defendant and to restore the original position. The trial court has also observed that the applicants have not filed any evidence to show that the construction is being made by the opposite party at present and has been made recently. On these grounds, the trial court has held that the case of urgency is not made out to grant leave to the applicants to file the suit during summer vacation. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case coupled with the relief sought by the petitioner in the plaint, as mentioned in the impugned order, I am of the view that the case of urgency to file suit in the summer vacation was not made out and no prejudice is going to be caused to the petitioners if the suit is filed after expiry of summer vacations. The application (paper no. 3-C) moved by the petitioners has been rightly rejected. The impugned order does not call for any interference by this Court. The writ petition being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed outright at the threshold. The writ petition is dismissed summarily. However, it is open to the petitioners to file the suit after summer vacations expiring on 30th June 2011. All pending applications stand disposed of. (B.S.Verma, J.) RCP