IN THE HIGH CORUT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NTAINAL Writ Petition No. 59 of 2009 With Interim Relief App. No. 321/2009 Vijay Kumar Dhir. ……………Petitioner. Versus Ajay Kumar Dhir & another. ………….. Respondents Mr. Arvind Vashisth, Advocate for the petitioner. None for the respondents. Hon’ble J.C.S. Rawat, J. Mr. Arvind Vashisth, Advocate for the petitioner. None for the respondents. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner for seeking following reliefs: (i) A writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus may very kindly be issued commanding the learned Trial Court (Ist Additional Civil Judge, Sr. Div., Dehradun) to decide and dispose of O.S. no. 42 of 2007 “Shri Vijay Dhir Vs. Shir Ajay Kumar Dhir and another” expeditiously and within a specified period of time. (ii) Any other suitable writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble court may deem fit and property in the circumstances of the case. (iii) Award the cost of petition to the petitioner. 3. It is apparent from the record that the petitioner had moved an early hearing application before the court concerned as well as for deciding the matter expeditiously. The aforesaid application did not contain the date of filing. However, Mr. Arvind Vashisth, the learned counsel for the petitioner has stated at Bar that the aforesaid application was moved on 23.10.2008 and it was fixed for hearing on the date fixed. It is revealed form Annexure 5 to the petition that on the next date i.e. on 19.11.2008, the petitioner/plaintiff had filed four papers had filed four papers and the case was fixed for framing of the issue on 05.12.2008 even then, the aforesaid application was not disposed of by the trial court. 4. The petitioner/ plaintiff has submitted an application which is alleged to be filed on 23.10.2008 before the court below stating therein that he is a resident of America and he has to come to India, especially in connection the case in dispute. He has further submitted before the court below that since the court has fixed 19/11/2008 as the date of framing of issues, a date for final hearing/ recording of evidence of the plaintiff also be fixed so that the evidence (including cross-examination) of the plaintiff could be recorded in one trip. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial court did not decide the said application on the date fixed and adjourned the matter till 05.12.2008 without framing the issue. 6. Having regard to the facts stated & in the interest of justice, the trial court is hereby directed to dispose of the above application pending before it by a speaking order, expeditiously preferably within ten days from the receipt of order. 7. The petition is disposed of accordingly. The interim relief application also stands disposed of. (J.C.S. Rawat, J.) 13.02.2009 V.K.