Uttarakhand High Court
Tanuj Kumar And Another ... vs Satyaveer Singh And Others on 3 May, 2021
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition No.914 of 2021 (M/S)
Tanuj Kumar and another ....Petitioners
Vs.
Satyaveer Singh and others ...Respondents
Advocate: Mr. Pankaj Kumar Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Navneet Kaushik, Advocate for the respondents.
Hon'ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.
The petitioners are plaintiff in a suit being Civil Suit No.35 of
2009, Tanuj Kumar and others vs. Suren Lata and others. The suit
proceeded ex-parte, was decreed by the judgment dated 30.05.2009.
2. Seeking its recall, the defendants have filed an application
under Order 9 Rule 13 of the C.P.C. to be read with Section 151 of C.P.C.,
alongwith a delay condonation being Paper No.4-A 1 and 6A- 1, before the
learned court of Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Roorkee District Haridwar, which
was numbered as Misc. Case No.04 of 2013. The said application preferred
by the defendants under Order 9 Rule 13 of the C.P.C. was allowed by an
order dated 31.07.2015, and as a consequence thereto the proceedings of
the suit in question revived back to be decided afresh. However, being
aggrieved against the order of 31.07.2019, allowing the application under
Order 9 Rule 13 of the C.P.C. as preferred by the defendants/respondents
herein, the plaintiffs/petitioners preferred a revision before the learned
District Judge Haridwar, being Civil Revision No.65 of 2015 Tanuj Kumar
and another vs. Satyaveer Singh and others. The said revision accompanied
with it an application for grant of an ex-parte injunction order of restrain
against the defendants from making any sale of the property, when no
order was passed by the revisional court on the same, the petitioners
preferred a writ petition, being a Writ Petition No.42 of 2021, which was
disposed of by this Court by a judgment of 08.01.2021, that till the
application for grant of interim protection was decided by the revisional
court, the parties to the revision were restrained from creating any third
party interest.
3. However, the subsequent proceedings, which was held before
the revisional court, it has been observed and also a finding has been
recorded that there had been a consistent adjournment which has been
sought by the plaintiffs/petitioners, herein and as a consequence thereto the
court was constrained to vacate the interim protection granted on
13.01.2021 of directing the parties not to create any third party interest.
The interim order has been vacated by the impugned order dated
25.03.2021. It is this order which has been put to challenge by the
petitioner before this Court, on the pretext that the adjournments, which
has been reflected to have been taken in the order of 25.03.2021, was on
account of the ailment of the counsel, but however the subsequent order
sheet reflects that the proceedings have already been carried, the parties
have already been heard, their arguments have been concluded and the
matter is ripe for delivery of judgment by the learned revisional court in
Revision No.65 of 2015.
4. Respondents have put in appearance through Mr. Navneet
Kaushik, Advocate who very candidly makes a statement that an
appropriate direction may be issued to the court of II Additional District
Judge, Roorkee, District Haridwar to render the judgment in Revision
No.65 of 2015, within a certain specified time frame, because the
arguments of the parties to the proceedings have already been concluded
and if the said direction is issued to the revisional court to conclude the
proceedings, within the certain time frame he undertakes that he will not
create any third party interest, during its pendency for the period, as to be
directed by this Court to decide the proceedings.
5. Considering the said statement made by the counsel for the
respondents, the counsel for the petitioners undertakes that he will not be
seeking any unnecessary adjournments and as such this writ petition is
being disposed of with a request to the court of II Additional District
Judge, Roorkee, District Haridwar, that in view of the undertaking given
by the counsel for the parties, the counsel for the petitioners undertakes
that they would render full cooperation to the court of II Additional
District Judge, Roorkee, District Haridwar, in concluding the proceedings
of the revision within the period of one month from today and for a period
of one month, Mr. Navneet Kaushik, Advocate, undertakes that he will not
create any third party interest over the property in dispute.
6. This period of direction to decide the Civil Revision, issued to
the court of II Additional District Judge, Roorkee, District Haridwar, to
decide the revision within a period of one month, would obviously be
exclusive of the period of stay of proceedings of the subordinate courts,
which has been or are issued by the direction of the High Court, on account
of the pandemic situation.
7. Subject to the above, the writ petition stands disposed of.
(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.)
03.05.2021
Arti
