Gurendra Singh v. State Of U.P. And 4 Others

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

The instant petition has been filed for the following relief: "i) A writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 23.8.2024 (contained as Annexure No.10 to the writ petition) and order dated 13.12.2023 (contained as Annexure No.8 to the writ petition) passed by SDM, Kali Nagar, Pilibhit. ii) A writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents authorities to decide the Original Suit No.T201812560500127 of 2018 (Gurendra Singh Vs. Jagjeet Singh and others) being filed under Section 116 of the Revenue Code, 2006 pending before the Respondent no.2 within a time bound period. "

Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that a preliminary decree was passed in proceedings under Section 116 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. Thereafter, the proceedings were dismissed in default. The petitioner who was the plaintiff filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. for restoration of the proceedings. The said application has been rejected on the ground that other side has filed a writ petition before this Court in which order of status quo in a First Appeal From Order has been granted by this Court. Therefore, the application for restoration cannot be proceeded with. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that mere pendency of a writ petition or an order of status quo have nothing to do with the decision on application under Order 9 Rule 13. Prima facie the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners appears to be correct.

Learned Standing Counsel has submitted that since against the order impugned, the petitioner has a remedy of filing appeal therefore this petition may not be entertained.

In view of the same, I am not inclined to interfere in the matter at this stage.