IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 685 of 2009 (M/S) Harish Chandra Pant, son of late Vishnu Dutt Pant, resident of Pipalsana, Tehsil Ramnagar. …….. Petitioner. Versus Deva Singh, son of Sri Ranjour Singh, resident of Pipalsana, Tehsil Ramnagar, district Nainital. ….. Respondent. Date May 19, 2009. Hon’ble B.S. Verma, J. (Stay Application No. 3666 of 2009) Heard Sri Anirudh Bhatt, advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 2. Admit the writ petition. 3. On 12-5-2009, this Court directed the petitioner to serve the respondent by ‘Dasti’ summon. It appears that the respondent refused to take Dasti summons. The petitioner has also filed affidavit to this effect and the refusal was made by the respondent in presence of two witnesses. The service upon the respondent is deemed to be sufficient. 4. This writ petition has been filed for quashing the impugned orders dated 11-11-20008 and 3-12-2008 (Annexure Nos. 4 and 6 to the writ petition), passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division) Nainital in Civil Suit No. 36 of 2005, Harish Chandra Pant Vs. Deva Singh. By the order dated 11-11-2008 the application of the petitioner-plaintiff for adjournment and for extending the time to pay the costs and to incorporate amendment pursuant to court’s order dated 27-8-2008 was rejected . By the order dated 3-12-2008, the recall application of the petitioner to recall the order dated 11-11-2008 was rejected. 5. A perusal of the record shows that the amendment application moved by the plaintiff-petitioner(paper no. 108-A) was allowed by the trial court on 27-8-2008 subject to payment of cost of Rs. 2,000/- and it was directed that the costs be deposited within a period of seven days and amendment in the plaint be incorporated within a period of three days thereafter. According to the petitioner, the counsel for the petitioner could not contact his client and costs were not deposited within the stipulated, therefore, application paper no. 126-D was moved before the trial court on 11-11-2008 for adjournment as well as to extend the time for deposit the cost and to incorporate amendment in the pliant. The trial court rejected the application vide order dated 11-11-2008. Another application of the plaintiff-petitioner to recall the order dated 11-11- 2008 was also rejected by order dated 3-12-2008. Both the said orders are impugned in this writ petition. 6. Having heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the material placed before the Court, it reveals from the orders impugned that while allowing the amendment application of the petitioner, seven days time was granted to pay the cost of Rs. 2,000/- and thereafter three days’ time was granted to incorporate the amendment in the plaint. The application moved by the petitioner (paper no. 126-D) was rejected without considering the contention of the petitioner. In the application, it was prayed that the counsel for the petitioner could not contact his client and for that reason, the cost was not paid within the stipulated time. Subsequently, the recall application of the petitioner too was dismissed on 3-12-2008. The writ petition deserves to be allowed. 7. In the interest of justice, both the orders impugned in this writ petition are set aside. The application of the petitioner (paper no. 126-D) is allowed and further seven days time is allowed to the petitioner to deposit the cost of Rs. 2000/- before the trial court and thereafter, the petitioner shall incorporate the amendment in the plaint within a period of one week. The writ petition is allowed accordingly. No order as to costs. (B.S. Verma, J.) RCP