IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL WPMS No. 1519 of 2005 With Interim Relief App. No. 9921/2006 Urgency App. No. 533/2009 Smt. Kushum & others. ……... Petitioners Versus Dr. Laxami Chand Maurya & others. …….. Respondents Mr. M.C. Pande, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. K.C. Tiwari, Brief Holder for the respondent-State Mr. Arvind Vashisth, Advocate for the private respondents. Hon’ble J.C.S. Rawat,J. Mr. M.C. Pande, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. K.C. Tiwari, Brief Holder for the respondent-State Mr. Arvind Vashisth, Advocate for the private respondents. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the petition is disposed of at the motion hearing stage. 4. This is a petition preferred by the petitioners under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the orders dated 05.10.2005, 22.11.2005 & 07.12.2005 passed by respondent no. 11 in Execution Case No. 12/2000 titled as Krishna Devi Vs. Ramesh Chandra & others by which service upon the heirs of the deceased Ramesh Chandra was found sufficient on the basis that a receipt of 58 Ga was filed by the parties. An order was passed on 22.11.2005 by which the Amin of the court was deputed to hand over the possession of the disputed property to the judgment debtor. Thereafter, an application on 07.12.2005 was moved by one of the judgment debtor; for setting aside the order dated 22.11.2205; for granting time to file objection; and till the hearing of the objection, the said parwana of handing over of the possession of the disputed property to the judgment debtor also be stayed. On the date fixed, the trial court only ordered to keep the application on file. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners were never informed of the proceedings which was being taken against them and, as such they are seeking setting aside of the order dated 07.12.2005. 6. The learned counsel for the respondent refuted the contentions and contended that the petitioners have sufficient information. 7. It is apparent that the order passed by the learned Civil Judge i.e. keeping the application moved by the petitioners on file is bad in the eye of law. It was the duty of the learned judge either to reject the application or to allow the application or, to grant time for filing objections to the petitioners. In these circumstances, I deem it proper to set aside the order dated. 7th December 2005 passed by respondent no. 11 in Execution Case No. 12/2000 titled as Krishna Devi Vs. Ramesh Chandra & others. It is further directed that the trial court will decide the application of the petitioners moved before it within thirty days from the receipt of this order by speaking order, either allowing the application or rejecting the application of the petitioners. 8. With the above directions, the petition is disposed of accordingly. The applications stand disposed of accordingly. (J.C.S. Rawat, J.) 04.03.2009 V.K.