IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 700 of 2010 (M/S) Aslam Khan & others ………..Petitioners Versus Bundu@Sukkar and others …….Respondents Shri Sharad Sharma, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Kamlesh Lohani, learned counsel for the petitioners. Shri R.C. Arya, learned Brief Holder for the State. Dated: 17 May, 2010 Hon’ble V.K. Bist, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging the order dated 18.02.2010 passed by Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) Haridwar in Suit no.44/2010 whereby, she has simplicitor issued notices to the respondents on the petitioners application filed under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as C.P.C.) The petitioners instituted Suit no.44/2010 before the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) Haridwar, along with an application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of C.P.C. The same was numbered as 7(ka). On 18.02.2010 the application no.7(ka) was considered by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Div) Haridwar, in which notices were issued and 10.05.2010 was fixed for disposal of application (paper no. 7-ka). In her order, the learned Civil Judge observed that without hearing the opposite 2 parties there is no justifiable ground for passing an ex- parte order. This petition was heard by me on 13.05.2010. Learned counsel for the petitioners informed that 14.05.2010 is fixed in the matter, therefore, the case was adjourned and today’s date was fixed. Today, learned counsel for the petitioners filed supplementary affidavit in the Court. In paragraph 3 of the supplementary affidavit it is mentioned that the Suit was taken up on 14.05.2010 in the Trial Court and the respondents have filed their objection under Order 39 Rule 4 C.P.C. to the application of the petitioners filed under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 C.P.C.. It is further mentioned in the paragraph 3 of the supplementary affidavit that the Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) after accepting the objection on record has fixed 01.07.2010 for disposal of the application filed under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 C.P.C. Learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners Shri Sharad Sharma, argued that by deferring the plaintiff’s application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 C.P.C., the petitioners/plaintiff’s are suffering a lot, as the respondents/defendants are raising construction which has been shown in the Amin’s report (Annexure 10 to the writ petition). He submitted that learned Civil Judge should have decided the matter without any further delay. I am convinced with the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners. Learned Civil Judge should not have given long date in the disposal of the interim application and should have decided the application without delay. Interim injunction application filed by the plaintiff’s/petitioners on 18.02.2010 has now been kept for disposal on 01.07.2010. Therefore, I direct the learned Civil Judge to decide the application of the petitioners filed under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 C.P.C. on 26.05.2010. The learned counsel for petitioners is permitted to supply certified copy of the order in the Trial Court on 19.05.2010 along with an application and on receipt of the same, the learned Civil Judge will fix 26.05.2010 for disposal of the interim application, after serving notices properly to the respondents. The learned counsel for the petitioners is also permitted to serve copy of the order on the Advocate of the defendants who are appearing in the Court below. With these directions the writ petition is disposed of. Interim application is also disposed of accordingly. Let a certified copy of the order be supplied to the learned counsel for the petitioners today itself on payment of usual charges. (V.K. Bist, J.) Arpan 17.05.2010