IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No. 871 of 2009 Uma Bhardwaj alias Uma Sharma ……. Petitioner Versus Shiv Ratan Sharma and others …….. Respondents …………………………. Sri Neeraj Garg, learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri Ratan Lal, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 3. Date: June 16, 2009. Hon’ble Prafulla C.Pant,J. Hon’ble B.S.Verma,J. By means of this petition, the petitioner has sought writ of certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated 08.06.2009 passed by Incharge Civil Judge (Senior Division)/II Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dehradun in Suit No. 329 of 2009, Uma Bhardwaj versus Rani Devi and others, whereby the application of the plaintiff/petitioner under Rule 13 of General Rules (Civil), 1957 was rejected. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner was granted interim order to the effect restraining the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 not to alienate the property in suit or not to create any third party interest. The application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 C.P.C. for interim injunction is pending before the court concerned i.e. Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Dehradun. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that during the vacation period, the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 (defendant Nos. 2 to 4 in the suit) started demolishing the property and raising constructions and were changing the nature of the property in suit. 2 3. The ad interim injunction, which was granted in favour of the plaintiff/petitioner restraining the defendants, not to alienate the property in suit, was passed in presence of the respondents’ counsel after hearing him at length. 4. The petitioner has filed second temporary injunction application (Paper No.34-C) during vacation alongwith application (Paper No.27-C) moved under Rule 13 of General Rules (Civil). The prayer was made in the application that till the disposal of interim injunction application, the application made under Rule 13 of General Rules (Civil) may be allowed and direction may be issued to maintain status quo. Rule 13 of General Rules (Civil), 1957 provides as under:- “13. Work on holidays.-Except with the consent of parties, no suit, case or appeal shall be heard on a gazetted holiday : Provided that on a gazetted holiday a court shall not refuse to do any act or make any order urgently required or which m,ay with propriety be done or made out of court.” 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the provision of Section 141 C.P.C., which reads as under:- “141. Miscellaneous proceedings.- The procedure provided in this Code in regard to suits shall be followed, as far as it can be made applicable, in all proceedings in any Court of civil jurisdiction.” 6. It is clear from the aforesaid provision that the procedure in regard to suits shall be followed, as far as it can be made applicable, in all proceedings in any court of civil jurisdiction. 7. On perusal of the impugned order, I find that the learned lower court has rightly held that it is not a fresh proceeding. The plaintiff had filed the suit prior to start of vacation of the court. Under Rule 13 of General Rules (Civil) provides that only fresh suit can be entertained 3 during the vacation period. No application can be entertained in pending suit. I find no perversity in the impugned order. 8. The writ petition is dismissed in limine. (Interim Relief Application No.4747/2009 stands dismissed accordingly). (B.S.Verma, J.) 16.06.2009 P.Singh