IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 2135 of 2009 (M/S) Sri Arsh Bari, S/o Sri Azhar Mohd. R/o 43/4 Gandhi Road, Dehradun. ……Petitioner. Versus Sri Azhar Mohd. S/o Late Sri Mzhar Mohd, R/o 43/4, Gandhi Road, Dehradun. ………Respondent. Mr. Rajendra Dobhal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Devesh Ghildiyal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. A.Rab, Advocate for caveator- Smt. Shamim Akhtar Date:- 21-12-2009 Hon’ble B.S. Verma J. Heard Mr. Rajendra Dobhal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Devesh Ghildiyal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A. Rab, Advocate appearing on behalf of Smt. Shamim Akhtar and daughter of defendant/respondent who are not party in the suit as well in the present writ petition. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 25-11-2009 passed by the Civil Judge (J.D), Dehradun in Civil Suit No. 607 of 2009, Sri Arsh Bari Vs. Sri Azhar Mohd. and to allow the ad-interim injunction ex-parte application in favour of the petitioner. The suit for permanent injunction has been filed by the plaintiff against the defendant Sri Azhar Mohd inter-alia on the ground that the defendant/respondent had executed gift deed in favour of the plaintiff/petitioner on 30.09.2009 and handed over the possession of the said property to the petitioner. 2 According to Mr. A. Rab, Advocate, who is appearing on behalf of Smt. Shamim Akhtar and Mr. Famim Akhtar, alleges that the defendant was not absolute owner of the property in dispute and he was only the co-owner thereof. He has also informed to the court that the application was also filed before the trial court for impleadment on her behalf. According to them, the plaintiff and the respondent are in collusion and deliberately the defendant is not appearing to file objections against temporary injunction application filed by the plaintiff. The photocopy of the gift deed has been filed by the petitioner, which is annexed as annexure No. 1 to the writ petition. The learned In-charge Civil Judge (J.D) Dehradun had issued notice on 25-11-2009 to the defendant for filing objections and for disposal of ad-interim injunction application and did not find the case of ex-parte injunction. The defendant moved an application before the trial court on 27-11-2009, which is annexed as annexure No. 6 to the writ petition and para No. 2 thereof threat was given by the defendant to the plaintiff for being removed from the disputed premises. Considering the facts that the defendant is threatening since after execution of the gift deed in favour of the plaintiff. Prima facie the gift deed is in favour of the plaintiff. If the daughter of the defendant has some grievance, she may file suit independently for cancellation of the gift deed or may move an application for impleadment before the trial court, if so advised. Then the trial court shall proceed in accordance with law, if moved. 3 The date fixed for objection and disposal was 18.12.2009 before the trial court and the defendant has the knowledge of the date fixed and he himself moved an application on 27-11-2009 and despite of sufficient service he is not filing his objection. Till the disposal of the temporary injunction application of the plaintiff, the parties are directed to maintain status quo. The learned In-charge Civil Judge (J.D.) Dehradun is directed to decide the temporary injunction application on merits after hearing both the parties, preferably as far as possible within a period of six weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order without being influenced by the order of this Court. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of finally. (Interim relief application No.11039 of 2009 stands disposed of.). (B.S. Verma, J.) 21-12-2009 MK