SPA/499/2013 of Bhupendra Singh Rawat AND OTHERS Vs Indra Lal Arya AND OTHERS on 31 December 2013

Conclusion

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITALSPECIAL APPEAL NO. 499 OF 2013

Bhupendra Singh Rawat and others.

…………….Appellants.

Versus

Indra Lal Arya and others.

…………Respondents.

Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Vinay Kumar, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand / respondent nos. 4 to 7.

Coram: Hon'ble Barin Ghosh, C.J.Hon'ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.

Barin Ghosh, C.J. (Oral)

On 18[th] December, 2012, an interim order was passed on a writ petition by a learned Single Judge. Present Appeal is against that interim order. In preferring the Appeal, there has been 322 days’ delay. An Application (CLMA No. 13442 of 2013) has been filed. It appears that, after 18[th] December, 2012, appellants applied for intervening in the writ petition. Their Intervention Application has been allowed. Subsequent thereto, they have also filed an Application for vacating the interim order. This Application is still pending. Because the Application for vacating the interim order is not being heard, appellants have preferred the present Appeal.

2. We do not think that the present Appeal, in the facts and circumstances of the case as above, is maintainable. We, accordingly, dismiss the Application for condonation of delay as well as the Appeal, with an observation that, in the event, appellants approach the learned Judge taking the writ petition with a request to fix an early date of hearing of the Application for vacating the interim order, the same shall be considered sympathetically.

(Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.) (Barin Ghosh, C.J.)

31.12.2013

Rathour