2025:UHC:5188 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI Writ Petition Misc. Single No. 1778 of 2025 19 June, 2025 Nitin Arora --Petitioner Versus Bharat Bhushan --Respondent ------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. Neeraj Garg & Mr. Rajendra Arya, Advocates for the petitioner. ---------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT Suit for permanent prohibitory injunction and mandatory injunction filed by petitioner was dismissed by Trial Court, vide judgment dated 31.05.2025. Since civil courts at Dehradun remain closed in the month of June, 2025, on account of summer vacation and therefore on 05.06.2025, petitioner filed Appeal under Section 96 CPC along with an application under Rule 13 of General Rules (Civil), 1957. The application under Rule 13 was rejected by learned District Judge, Dehradun by holding that the matter is not of such urgency, which may warrant hearing during summer vacation. Thus, feeling aggrieved by the rejection order dated 05.06.2025 petitioner has approached this Court. 1 2025:UHC:5188 2. Rule 13 of General Rules (Civil), which was invoked, is extracted below:- “13. Work on holidays. - Except with the consent of parties, no suit, case or appeal shall be heard on a gazette holiday: Provided that on gazette holiday a court shall not refuse to do any act or make any order urgently required or which may with propriety be done or made out of court. [Provided further that during civil court vacations, civil cases may be instituted and urgent fresh matters may be heard. For the purpose of, one officer in the cadre of civil judge (Junior Division) and one in civil judge (Senior Division) cadre shall remain present on rotation basis through-out the civil courts vacations in district Dehradun, Haridwar, Nainital, and Udham Singh Nagar. In other districts, if an officer in aforesaid cadre is not available, any other officer, to whom charge is given for this purpose, shall hear urgent matters.]” 3. A careful perusal of the aforesaid provision reveals that no suit, case or appeal shall be heard on gazetted holiday, except with the consent of parties. Proviso thereto, however enables the court to hear a matter even on a gazetted holiday, if an order is urgently required in the said case having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. Thus, matters of grave urgency can be heard even on gazette holiday. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner contends that the order passed by learned District Judge is unsustainable in view of provision contained in Section 15 of Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act, 1887. Section 15 of the said Act is extracted below: 2 2025:UHC:5188 “15. Vacations of Courts.—(1) Subject to such orders as may be made by the State Government the High Court shall prepare a list of days to be observed in each year as close holiday in the Civil Courts. (2) The list shall be published in the official Gazette. (3) A judicial act done by Civil Court on a day specified in the list shall not be invalid by reasons only of its having been done on that day.” 5. Perusal of Section 15 reveals that High Court has to prepare a list of holidays for Civil Courts, which has to be published in the official gazette. Sub-section (3) of Section 15 further provides that a judicial act done by a Civil Court on a gazetted holiday shall not be invalid merely because it was done on a holiday. Thus, Section 15 also do not support the case of petitioner and it only lifts the embargo, which is there on a judicial act on a gazette holiday. 6. Proviso to Rule 13 of General Rules (Civil) enables a Civil Court to entertain a matter if it is satisfied that having regard to the urgency involved, it deserves to be heard on a holiday. The said proviso, however, does not create any right in favour of a litigant. Whether the matter is so urgent, which may warrant hearing during vacation, has to be decided by Civil Court. 3 2025:UHC:5188 7. In the present case, learned District Judge found the matter to be not of extreme urgency, and refused to hear the appeal during vacation. 8. This court do not find any reason to interfere with the discretionary order passed by learned District Judge. 9. The writ petition fails and is dismissed. ________________________ MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, J. Dt: 19.06.2025 Navin 4 NAVEEN CHANDRA Digitally signed by NAVEEN CHANDRA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3be23325146e76a0642bdf4943fb9046f487df 006da82a131bb4e4403d3c0a15, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=18167EEFB5CA8CFFD421A103819DA87 5643AF56D653D095C6ED9A86DAAB21CE5, cn=NAVEEN CHANDRA Date: 2025.06.21 13:00:57 +05'30'