IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 1563 of 2008 (M/S) Smt. Ranjini Kumar …….. Petitioner Versus Sri Suresh Chander Kumar …….. Respondent ………. Mr. Ramji Srivastava, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Alok Singh, Senior Advocate with Mr. Devesh Ghildiyal, Advocate for the respondent. Hon’ble V.K. GUPTA, C. J. Application 16-C was filed by the petitioner in the Trial Court in which following two reliefs were claimed: (1) Restraining the plaintiff (respondent herein) from causing any obstruction in the use and occupation as well as residence qua the applicant-defendant and her children; (2) Directing the plaintiff (respondent herein) to either deposit in the Court or pay to the petitioner-defendant the rent being realized from two tenants, namely, Ravi Prakash and Devendra Bisht. Vide order passed on 15.03.2008, the learned Trial Court granted the first relief by directing and ordering that if the petitioner wishes to reside in the house in question, the respondent-plaintiff shall not cause any obstruction with respect to such residence qua the petitioner as well as her children. In so far as the second relief is concerned, the learned Court below did not pass any order on 15.03.2008, because all that it did was to direct the respondent to render full account of the rent being received by him as well as to file an undertaking in the Court to the effect that if the Court reaches a conclusion that the petitioner is entitled to receive the rent amount, the respondent shall pay the rent amount to her as per the order of the Court. Obviously, therefore, on 15.03.2008 the petitioner’s second prayer was neither granted nor declined. At the risk of reiteration, it is stated that only direction issued in the order dated 15.03.2008 was calling 2 upon the respondent-plaintiff to render the account of the rent received as well as to file undertaking as noticed hereinabove. Vide the impugned order dated 24.07.2008, therefore, the learned Trial Court has wrongly observed that Application 16-C has already been disposed of. 16-C has not been disposed of, because no order has been passed this way or the other with respect to the second relief of the petitioner. This petition is disposed of by directing the learned Court below to dispose of 16-C Application by passing a specific order on its merits and in accordance with law in so far as the second relief of the petitioner is concerned. The application shall be disposed of very very expeditiously and in any event within three months from the date of communication of this order. (V. K. Gupta, C. J.) 07.01.2009 A