IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL WRIT PETITION (MS) NO. 399 OF 2007 Smt. Sarita Agarwal ………Petitioner. Versus Ram Gopal and others. …..Respondents. Present : Mr. Rajendra Dobhal, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. G.D. Joshi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. N.S. Negi, Advocate for respondent no. 1. Date of Decision: 20.9.2010 Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. 1. Heard learned counsels for both the parties. 2. Mr. N.S. Negi, learned counsel for respondent no. 1 has stated that in this case the main grievance of the petitioner was that in the proceedings in the Court below his impleadment application was rejected. Hence, the present writ petition under Article 227/226 of the Constitution of India was filed by the petitioner, wherein by an interim order dated 10.5.2007, the entire proceeding of Suit No. 161 of 2002 Ram Gopal Vs. Kamal Kumar Mehta and others pending in the Court of First Fast Track Court was stayed. Mr. N.S.Negi, learned counsel for respondent no. 1 further states that he has no objection if his prayer for impleadment is allowed, but the proceedings which have been stayed vide interim order dated 10.5.2007 may go on. 3. In view of the statement made by the counsel for respondent no. 1 Shri N.S. Negi, no useful purpose will be solved if the writ petition remains pending in this Court. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of with the direction that the impleadment application filed by the petitioner before the Court below shall be considered afresh. While disposing of the impleadment application, the Court concerned shall keep in mind the undertaking given by the counsel for respondent no. 1 that he will have no objection if the petitioner is impleaded as a party before the Court below. It is only on the basis of the statement made by the counsel for respondent no. 1 that this matter is being disposed of on the terms stated above. The orders dated 20.5.2006 and 13.2.2007 are hereby set aside. The matter is accordingly remanded to the Court below, which shall decide the matter afresh after impleading the petitioner as a party. Interim orders if any are also vacated. 4. The Registry is directed to inform the Court below for necessary compliance of this order. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 20.9.2010 Rathour