Pankaj Purohit, J
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. By means of this writ petition, petitioner has prayed to direct the Fourth Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) Dehradun to keep in abeyance the
proceedings of Execution Case No.298 of 2018 (96/2020) ‘Rashidhan and others v. Nagar Nigam and others’ till a decision is made in Review
Application (MCC 461 of 2018) filed by petitioner in Second Appeal No.61 of 2012.
3. The prayer made by the petitioner in the writ petition is completely untenable in the eyes of law which cannot be granted for the reasons given
hereinbelow.
4. Facts shorn off unnecessary details are that respondents filed O.S. No.39 of 2003 seeking perpetual injunction against Nagar Nigam, Dehradun.
The said suit was decreed by First Additional Civil Judge (J.D.) by judgment dated 30.10.2010 and counterclaim of Waqf was dismissed. Petitioner as
well as Waqf Vikas Nigam went in appeals against the said judgment dated 30.10.2010 which were decided by Additional District Judge on
07.04.2012 thereby partly allowing the appeal. Challenging the said judgment, Second Appeal No.61 of 2012 was preferred by petitioner-Nagar Nigam
whereas Second Appeal Nos.67 and 70 both of 2012 were preferred by ‘Waqf Vikas Nigam’ which were decided by common judgment and
order dated 29.12.2017, by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. Against the said judgment, review petition (MCC 461 of 2018) was filed by the petitioner
which is pending before this Court.
5. Instead of filing an application to expedite the hearing of review application, prayer for stay of execution proceedings has been made in this petition.
6. The said prayer made by the petitioner is not tenable at all. The petition is liable to be and is dismissed at the threshold itself. However, it shall be
open to the petitioner to request for early decision of the review application (MCC 461 of 2018) filed in Second Appeal No.61 of 2012, as mentioned
hereinabove.
7. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.
