IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1459 of 2011 Rajendra Kumar S/O Sri Harish Chandra, R/O Village Bahadarpur Jat, Pargana Jwalapur, Tehsil and District Haridwar. … Petitioner. Versus Zahid Hassan S/O Imamuddin, R/O Village Bahadarpur Jat, Pargana Jwalapur, Tehsil and District Haridwar. … Respondent. Ms. Menka Tripathi, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner. Date July 19, 2011. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. (Misc. Application No.7201 of 2011) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought a writ for setting aside the order dated 24-11-2009 passed by the Trial Court and the order dated 21-12-2010 passed by the first appellate Court. By the order dated 24-11-2009 passed in Original Suit No. 57 of 2007, Zahid Hasan Vs. Rajendra Kumar, the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Haridwar, while allowing the application (paper no. 7C2) of the plaintiff-respondent under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. for temporary injunction has restrained the defendant not to alienate the disputed property during the pendency of the suit. By the order dated 21-12-2010, the appeal preferred against the said order of the trial court has been dismissed. I have perused the impugned orders passed by the two courts below. I have also perused the copy of the plaint as well as copy of the written statement, which have been annexed as Annexure No. 4 and Annexure No. 6 respectively to the writ petition. The plaintiff-respondent filed the suit for specific performance of contract against the defendant to direct him to get the sale deed executed in favour of the plaintiff. From a bare perusal of the plaint, it is obvious that the plaintiff has pleaded that the plaintiff and defendant entered into a registered agreement for sale, whereby the plaintiff passed on a consideration of Rs. 50,000/- towards part payment of the sale 2 amount of the disputed property to the defendant on 29-12-2005 and it was agreed that the sale deed will be executed on 30-6-2006 after the remaining amount of sale consideration is received by the defendant. According to the plaintiff-respondent, the defendant has failed to perform his part of contract as agreed upon between the parties. The trial court after considering the material placed before it and hearing both the parties has passed the order restraining the defendant not to create third party interest in the disputed property during the pendency of the suit. The appellate court has also considered all the aspect of the case and did not find favour with defendant-petitioner. Having heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the view that no prejudice is being caused to the defendant by restraining him not to alienate the disputed property during the pendency of the suit. I do not find any perversity in the impugned orders. The writ petition being devoid of merit is dismissed in limine. However, the learned trial Court is directed to decide the suit (O.S. No. 57 of 2007, Zahid Hasan Vs. Rajendra Kumar) on merits in accordance with law expeditiously as far as possible. Unnecessary adjournments shall be avoided. Both the parties shall co-operate with the trial court in the speedy disposal of the suit. All pending applications stand disposed of. (B.S.Verma, J.) RCP