WPMS/1240/2021
2021 Latest Caselaw 2168 UK

                     Office Notes, reports,
SL.                 orders or proceedings or
          Date                                                  COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No                 directions and Registrar's
                     order with Signatures


      01.07.2021
                                                WPMS No. 1240 of 2021
                                                Hon'ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.

(Via Video Conferencing) Mr. Sachin Kumar Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner.

The Registry has reported that there is defect to the effect that the deponent to the affidavit i.e. the petitioner has not signed the photograph. The learned counsel for the petitioner makes statement at the Bar, and which is accepted by the Court that the photograph appended with the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition is that of the petitioner himself. Hence, in view of the said statement, the defect, as pointed out by the Registry is overruled.

The petitioner to the present writ petition had contended that he is a plaintiff in a Civil Suit being Civil Suit No. 316 of 2016, Arun Kumar Kashyap Vs. Paras Kashyap and others, which has been preferred by the petitioner for the purposes of partition of the property and for the grant of decree of permanent injunction. He submitted that during the pendency of the Suit, in which the decree of partition has been sought interse between the successors of late Mr. Nathi Ram Kashyap, he filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of the CPC, and the same is pending consideration and no orders have been passed on the same. As a consequence thereto, he is apprehensive of a threat that in an event, if the defendants to the suit and the respondents herein deal with the property in any manner, whatsoever without its partitioning, it may prejudices his rights.

Looking to the aforesaid contingency and the nature of relief sought for by the petitioner in this writ petition, the writ petition is being disposed of with a request to the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Roorkee District Haridwar to make all efforts to decide the application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of CPC, as expeditiously as possible, but not later than two months from the date of production of the certified copy of this judgment.

After the conclusion of the judgment, the learned counsel for the petitioner informed that the learned trial Court has fixed 07.07.2021, as the date fixed for hearing on application paper No. 6C2, which is apparent from the order sheet annexed by the petitioner. In an alternative, it is requested that the learned trial Court will make all efforts to decide the application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 of CPC, on the next date fixed and if it is not possible to be decided on the said date for any whatsoever logical reason, it will be decided within a period of six weeks thereafter.

Subject to above observation, the writ petition stands disposed of.

(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.) 01.07.2021 Mahinder/