IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No.936 of 2009 1. Shri Khushnud Ali S/o Late Shri Gulab, 2. Shri Ghalib Rasool S/o Late Shri Gulab, 3. Shri Talib Hasan S/o Late Shri Mahmood, 4. Shri Gulam Rasul S/o Late Shri Mahmood, 5. Shri Aashir Khan S/o Late Shri Mahmood, All reaidents of Village Kargi Grant, Pargana Pachwadoon, Tehsil Sadar, District-Dehradun. ……. ………. Petitioners Versus 1. Nagar Nigam, Dehradun through its Deputy Nagar Officer, 2. Shri Sushil Kumar, Chief Nagar Officer, Nagar Nigam, Dehradun, 3. Head Quarters, Vigilance Department, Dehradun through Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Department,Dehradun. 4. Shri Amit Negi, District Magistrate, Dehradun, Court Compound, Dehradun. 5. Shri Bhuvan Chandra Khanduri, Chief Minister, State of Uttarakhand, Secretariat, Dehradun. 6. Shri Indu Pande, Chief Secretary, State of Uttarakhand, Secretariat, Dehradun. ……………… Respondents ..……………….. Sri Davesh Bishnoi Advocate present for the petitioners. Date: July 07, 2009 Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. By means of this petition, the petitioners have sought writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the judgment and order dated 06.05.2009 passed by District Judge, Dehradun in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 56 of 2 2009 (Khushnud Ali and others versus Nagar Nigam, Dehradun and others), by which the lower court was directed to decide the Original Suit No. 165/2005, on merits as expeditiously as possible and to decide the pending contempt petition (Misc. Case No.12/2008) alongwith that suit. 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that for disobedience of the order passed on ad-interim injunction application moved under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 C.P.C., the petitioners had instituted an application under Order XXXIX Rule 2A C.P.C., which was registered as Misc. Case No.12 of 2008, (Khushnud Ali and others versus Nagar Nigam, Dehradun and others). During the pendency of that miscellaneous case, second application (Paper Nos.3A/1 – 3A 1/3) was also moved by the petitioners under Order XXXIX Rule 2A C.P.C. The said second application (Misc. Case No.7 of 2009) was rejected by Civil Judge (Jr. Division) on 04.03.2009 on the ground that for the same cause of action, Miscellaneous Case No. 12 of 2008 is pending for disposal. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners preferred appeal before the District Judge, which was also dismissed by the order impugned in this petition. 3. The only contention made by learned counsel for the petitioners before this Court as well as before the appellate court and trial court that the respondent Nos. 4, 5 & 6 were not made party in the earlier application. So that he has filed second application under Order XXXIX Rule 2A C.P.C. This contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners cannot be accepted for the simple reason that if other persons violated the order of the court, the 3 proper course was to array them as party in the earlier application moved under Order XXXIX Rule 2A C.P.C. by seeking amendment. 4. It is pertinent to mention here that respondent Nos. 4, 5 & 6 were not party to the original suit (No.165 of 2005). 5. In view of above, the trial court has rightly rejected the Misc.Case No.07 of 2009 on the ground that the second application moved under Order XXXIX Rule 2A C.P.C. is not maintainable. The learned District Judge also did not commit any manifest error of law in affirming the same in appeal by directing the trial court to decide the original suit on merits as expeditiously as possible and to decide the pending contempt petition (Misc.Case No.12/2008) alongwith that suit. 6. The writ petition is devoid of merit and is dismissed in limine. (Stay Application No.5190/2009 is also dismissed accordingly.) (B.S.Verma,J.) 07.07.2009 P.Singh