IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2087 of 2009 (M/S) 1. Gurmukh Singh 2. Atar Singh 3. Sarjan Singh 4. Harnam Singh 5. Jaswant Singh All sons of late Sri Swaroop Singh, Residents of Village Durgapur, Tehsil Jaspur, District Udham Singh Nagar. ……Petitioners. Versus 1. Ministry of Defence, Government of India, Through Defence Estate Officer, Barielly Cantonement Bareilly. 2. Remount Hempur Depot, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar, through its Commandant. 3. Forest Department, Aam Pokhra Range, West Forest Division, Ram Nagar, District Nainital through its Divisional Forest Officer. 4. State of Uttarakhand, through Collector, District Udham Singh Nagar. ………Respondents. Mr. Sudhir Kumar, Advocate and Mr. Anant Kumar Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioners. Mr. V.B.S. Negi, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India for the respondent No.1. Mr. R.C. Arya, learned Brief Holder for the respondent Nos. 3 and 4. Date:- 10-12-2009 Hon’ble B.S. Verma J. Heard Mr. Sudhir Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. V.B.S. Negi, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India for the respondent No. 2 and Mr. R.C. Arya, learned Brief Holder for the respondent Nos. 3 and 4. By means of this petition, the petitioners have sought a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 1-12-2009 passed by the District Judge, Udham Singh Nagar in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 73 of 2009, RTS and Depot Vs. Gurmukh Singh and others filed 2 against the order dated 20-11-2009 passed on application moved under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 ex-parte in suit No. 11 of 2009. The respondent did not file objections against the temporary injunction application and sought an adjournment before the Trial Court, which while granting time issued the ex parte injunction. The respondent No.2 did not file objection ever and thereafter preferred the appeal. Learned appellate court without assigning any reason stayed the operation of the impugned order dated 20- 11-2009 while the order passed by the trial court was a reasoned order. The appeal was admitted and notices were issued. The case of the plaintiff before the trial court was that lease was granted under the Government Grants Act of the disputed land for which he has also filed the copies of the lease deeds and are in possession thereto but the appellate court while admitting the appeal did not consider that there were lease deeds in favour of the plaintiffs-predecessors. The respondent had an opportunity to contest as to whether these lease deeds pertains to the same land or not is a subject matter of the suit. The injunction was granted before issuing notices under Order 39 Rule 3-A of C.P.C, where an injunction has been granted without giving notice to the opposite party, the Court shall make an endeavour to finally dispose of the application within thirty days from the date on which the injunction was granted and where it is unable so to do, it shall record its reasons for such inability. The respondent has not filed any application/objection under Order 39 Rule 4 for setting aside the order passed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2. 3 During the course of arguments, both the parties have agreed that the order be modified to the extent that the both the parties shall maintain status quo till disposal of the ad interim injunction, which is pending for disposal before Civil Judge (S.D), Kashipur. The respondent may file objection within two weeks from today and thereafter the learned Civil Judge (S.D), Kashipur is directed to decide the interim injunction after hearing both the parties expeditiously as far as possible preferably within a period of 30 days. With the said direction, the writ petition is dispose of finally. All pending applications stand disposed of accordingly. (B.S. Verma, J.) 10-12-2009 MK