IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 57 of 2008 Date of decision: 20.3.2008 Mohan Lal and others ..Petitioners Versus State of H.P. and others ..Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioners: Mr. Virender Singh, Advocate For the respondents : Mr. R.M.Bisht, Deputy Advocate General Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral) The petitioners by means of this petition have made a prayer that the learned trial court be directed to decide the application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC in a time bound manner. Normally there would have been no problem in passing an order on this application straightaway. However, the facts of this case are not so simple. The suit in question was filed on 15th December, 2004 and it appears that the petitioners were 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? 2 permitted to file the suit without issuing notice under Section 80 CPC vide order dated 3.1.2005. Alongwith the suit an application for interim relief was also filed. The suit as well as the application were first taken up on 3rd January, 2005 when notices were issued. As far as the stay application for grant of ad interim stay is concerned, after the replies etc. were filed, the application was heard on 3rd May, 2005 and thereafter on 4th June, 2005. As per the copy of the order sheets attached with the petition, no order appears to have been passed on the application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC after 4th June, 2005. The order sheet of the suit show that issues were framed as far back as on 6th May, 2006 and thereafter for almost 2 years the petitioners have been taking time to lead evidence. From the perusal of the order sheets I do not find that the petitioners ever prayed to the learned trial court for deciding of the application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC. It would also be pertinent to mention that the application in question appears to have been heard by the then Civil Judge (Senior Division) on 4th June, 2005. Thereafter a new Presiding Officer joined on 15th June, 2005. The case was then transferred to the another Judicial Officer in August, 3 2007. No effort was ever made by the petitioners to apprise the new Judicial Officer(s) of the fact that there was an application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC which was pending and straightaway have come to this court. It also appears that the plaintiffs have been remiss in leading their evidence and it seems that this is a just ruse to delay the case. The petition is accordingly dismissed. The evidence of the plaintiffs may be recorded on the date already fixed. In case the petitioners move an application for decision of the application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC, the same shall be considered in accordance with law. The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No costs. March 20, 2008(K) ( Deepak Gupta ), J.