VINOD KUMAR GARG Vs. PATANJALI ASHRAM AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Shri Karan Anand, Advocate holding brief of Shri Narendra Bali, learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. Present petition has been filed by the petitioner for a direction in the nature of mandamus for restraining the respondents from interfering in the peaceful pos­session of petitioner in the shop under his tenancy till the date fixed in restoration application i.e., till 3.7.2010.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case, as stated in the petition, are that the petitioner is a tenant in a shop situated at Patanjali Ashram, Pawan Dham Road, Bhupatwala Haridwar. In the year 2008 respondents refused to receive the rent of the shop in question and ultimately petitioner moved an application under section 30 (1), U.P. Act 13/72 to deposit the rent in the Court and the petitioner is continuously depositing the rent. Thereafter, the respondents started threat­ening the petitioner to dispossess him forcibly without adopting the recourse to law and in the prevailing circumstances, petitioner instituted a Civil Suit No. 296/2008, Vinod Kumar Garg v. Patanjali Ashram in the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Haridwar for permanent injunction and also filed interim injunction application under Order XXXIX, Rule 1 and 2 of Code of Civil Procedure for granting temporary injunction. On 8.10.2008, the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Haridwar passed ex parte interim injunction directing the parties to maintain status quo in respect of property in question. On 9.4.2010 Original Suit No. 296/2008, Vinod Kumar Garg v. Patanjali Ashram was dismissed for non-prosecution. The petitioner moved a restoration application on 14.5.2010. The same is pending.

(3.) ORIGINAL Suit No. 296/2008, Vinod Kumar Garg v. Patanjali Ashram was dismissed on 9.4.2010 and the restoration application was moved by the petitioner on 14.5.2010 and the present writ petition has been filed after a gap of one month. Therefore, I do not find any good ground for passing order in favour of the petitioner as prayed in the writ petition. However, the Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Haridwar is directed to decide the restoration application of the petitioner on the next date fixed or within 10 days thereafter.