IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No.462 of 2003 (M/S) Virendra Singh .…Petitioner Versus Mohabbat Singh & others ...Respondents Mr. Lok Pal Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Hon’ble V.K. Bist, J. Present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the impugned order dated 14.05.2003 passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge, Haridwar in Civil Revision No.24 of 2002 by which application of the petitioner for extension of interim order was rejected. Brief facts of the case as stated in the writ petition are that respondent no.1 instituted a Civil Suit No.07 of 1979, Mohabbat Singh Vs. Jhandu Singh & others in the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Roorkee. The father of the revisionist was defendant in the said suit but he was never served the notice of the case. On 07.08.1989 the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Roorkee passed an ex-partee decree. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application for setting aside the ex-partee decree dated 07.08.1989 which is pending in the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) Haridwar. In the meantime respondent no.1 initiated execution proceeding on the basis of ex-partee decree dated 07.08.1989. The petitioner filed his objection 2 before the Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Roorkee (Executing Court) but the same was dismissed. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred a Civil Revision No.24 of 2002 in the court of District Judge, Haridwar which was transferred to the court of Additional District and Sessions Judge/1st Fast Track Court, Haridwar. In the said revision steps were taken by the petitioner to serve the respondents but some of the respondents were not served. The learned Additional District and Sessions Judge/1st Fast Track Court, Haridwar fixed 14.05.2003 for hearing. On that day the petitioner moved an application for adjournment on the ground of illness of his counsel along with the application for extension of interim stay order. Learned Additional District and Sessions Judge/1st Fast Track Court, Haridwar allowed the adjournment application of the petitioner and fixed 01.07.2003 in the matter but the application for extension of interim stay order was rejected. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the restoration application filed by the petitioner for setting aside the ex-parte decree dated 07.08.1989 is still pending in the court of Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Haridwar due to which petitioner is suffering a lot. He further submitted that petitioner was not given opportunity of hearing and without affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the court below passed an ex-partee order. Revision filed by the petitioner is still pending. He submitted that once adjournment application filed by the petitioner was allowed 3 by the court below, the court below should not have rejected the application of the petitioner for extension of interim order. The order passed by the court below rejecting the application of the petitioner is erroneous and illegal. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and after considering the fact that petitioner did not take steps for other respondents, the court below rightly rejected the application of the petitioner. I do no find any illegality in the order dated 14.05.2003 passed by Additional District Judge, Haridwar. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed. Interim order dated 02.06.2003 is vacated. However, it is directed that Revision No.24 of 2002 shall be decided very- very expeditiously. (V.K.Bist. J,) 04.06.2010 Arti 4