IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 1873 of 2009 (M/S) Sri Luv Singh & another … Petitioners Vs Ajit Singh Panwar & others … Respondents Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. By way of this petition, the petitioner who is the decree holder has prayed for issuing a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the Additional District Judge/F.T.C., 1st, Dehradun before whom, Misc. Case No. 184 of 2006 (arising out of O.S. No. 463 of 1993, Luv Singh & another Vs Ajit Singh Panwar & others) is pending to decide the same expeditiously. 2. Heard Sri Gajendra Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record. 3. The record reveals that the original suit No. 463 of 1993 Nirmala Rana & others Vs Ajit Singh Panwar & another was filed before the court of District Judge, Dehradun in the year 1993. The record of original testamentary Case No. 6 of 1992 Nirmala Rana & others Vs Ajit Singh Panwar & others was filed before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. The Hon’ble Allahabad High Court directed the learned District Judge, Dehradun to attach the property and put the same in its custody. In compliance of the order passed by the Allahabad High Court, a misc. case No. 463 of 1993 Nirmal Rana & others Vs Ajit Singh Panwar & others was registered in the court of District Judge. The Allahabad High Court finally decided both the suit in respect of testamentary case No. 6 of 1992 (subsequently Testamentary suit No. 11 of 1995 and also granted letters of administration in favour of petitioner No. 1. 2 4. Against the aforesaid order respondent No. 1 – Ajit Singh Panwar filed the S.L.P. before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court on 12.09.1997 dismissed the S.L.P. The order of the Hon’ble Apex Court has been annexed as annexure No. 1 to the writ petition. After the dismissal of the S.L.P. respondent No. 1 – Ajit Singh Panwar, again filed a special appeal before the Allahabad High Court, which was subsequently dismissed on 01.09.2005. Thereafter, the petitioner filed the execution application before the District Judge, Dehradun, which has been registered as Misc. Case No. 184 of 2006 (arising out of O.S. No. 463 of 1993, Luv Singh & another Vs Ajit Singh Panwar & others). The same case is now pending before the Additional District Judge/F.T.C. 1st, Dehradun since 2006. 5. The record thus shows that the petitioners are not able to enjoy the fruit of the case, as yet. The suit was filed in the year1993 and even after the lapse of more than 16 years; the petitioners have not been able to enjoy the fruit of the case. The Judge, where the execution proceedings are pending should keep note of the facts and circumstance that the suit was filed in the year 1993; therefore, the execution proceedings should be concluded as early as possible. The execution court should also take note of the fact that the execution proceedings should not be adjourned unnecessarily. Now, the execution court shall not grant any adjournments to either side on any unreasonable ground and take all sort of endeavor to decide the execution proceedings as early as possible and without causing any unreasonable delay. 6. In view of the aforesaid circumstance, I think, that the prayer made by the petitioners by way of this petition 3 appears to be innocuous and I direct the executing court where the matter is pending to decide the execution proceedings as early as possible and without causing any unreasonable delay. 7. As I have already observed in the body of the judgment, the executing court shall not grant any adjournment to either side on any unreasonable ground. 8. With the aforesaid observation, the petition is disposed of finally. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) 09.11.2009 ASWAL