IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 796 (M/S) of 2010 Bhawani Shankar …Petitioner Versus Devendra Vigyani …Respondent With Writ Petition No. 951 (M/S) of 2010 Devendra Vigyani …Petitioner Versus Bhawani Shankar …Respondent Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J. Heard Sri Arvind Vashist, the learned counsel for the plaintiff/petitioner and Sri Neeraj Garg, the learned counsel for the opposite party. It transpires that a suit no. 57 of 1970 was filed by the petitioner/plaintiff for cancellation of a sale deed and during its pendency, the suit was dismissed for want of prosecution on 29th November, 1976. It transpires that a restoration application no. 100 of 1976 was filed and during its pendency, it is alleged that a number of plaintiffs and defendants died, in which substitution applications were filed which remained pending all these years. It transpires that misc. case no. 100 of 1976 was dismissed for want of prosecution on 20th October, 2005, pursuant to which, the plaintiff filed a restoration application no. 23 of 2005 on 4th November, 2005. It transpires that the said application no. 23 of 2005 contained certain errors with regard to the array of parties, and consequently, an amendment application was filed 2 praying that the word ‘deceased’ may be written in front of those persons who had died. A further prayer was made to substitute the names of the heirs of the persons who had died. The said amendment application was rejected by an order of the trial court dated 7th April, 2010, against which, the present writ petition has been filed. In my opinion, the trial court committed an error in not allowing the amendment application with regard to the incorporation of the word ‘deceased’ in front of the names of the persons who had died, but, was justified in rejecting the application for substitution of the names of the heirs of opposite parties no. 4, 6 and 7. This Court is of the opinion that their names could not be substituted at this stage since the substitution application for impleading their names had not been allowed by the trial court. In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition no. 796 (M/S) of 2010 is partly allowed and the impugned order dated 7th April, 2010, is modified to the extent that paragraph 25 (A), (B), (C), (D), (E) are allowed and necessary amendment shall be made by the plaintiff in the restoration application. The prayer made in paragraph 25 (F), (G), (H) for substitution of the names, is rejected at this stage since their substitution application is still pending consideration. The defendant has also filed Writ Petition no. 951 (M/S) of 2010 for the quashing of the 3 proceedings in Misc. Case No. 23 of 2005, by which, an application has been filed by the plaintiff/respondent to recall the order dated 20th October, 2005. In my opinion, no ground is made out to interfere in a writ jurisdiction. Writ Petition no. 951 (M/S) of 2010 fails and is dismissed. The suit is of the year 1970. The restoration application is pending for the last 25 years. The Court, accordingly, directs the trial court to decide Misc. Case No. 23 of 2005 within two weeks from the date of the production of a certified copy of this order. In the event, the said application is allowed, the trial court will immediately thereafter proceed and decide Misc. Case No. 100 of 1976 and all such other Misc. Applications including substitution applications within two months thereafter. Further, in the event, the said applications are allowed and the suit is restored to its original number, the trial court will immediately proceed on a day-to-day basis and decide the suit within six months thereafter. (Tarun Agarwala, J.) 06-09-2010 Salim/