JUDGMENT Ritu Raj Awasthi,J.: - Notice on behalf of opposite party no. 1 has been accepted by Mr. Manish Kumar. For the order proposed to be passed, there is no need to issue notices to opposite party no. 2 and 3, hence notices to opposite party nos. 2 and 3 are hereby dispensed with. 2. Grievance of the petitioner appears to be that the application No.B-13, moved under Order IX, Rule 13 C.P.C. for setting aside the ex parte judgment and decree dated 28.11.1996 and under Order XXII, Rule 4 (3) for abatement is not being decided by the learned court below. 3. Mr. Umesh Chandra, learned Sr. Advocated assisted by Mr. Sandeep Sharma, learned counsel for petitioner has drawn attention of the Court towards the aforesaid application, a copy of which is annexed as Annexure No. 3 to the writ petition. 4. It is submitted that the said application was preferred on 18.4.2012. The opposite parties have filed their objection and the said application is pending disposal. 5. It is also submitted that the suit for mandatory injunction was filed by the opposite parties to which the petitioner has also filed counter claim. 6. I have considered the submissions made by the parties' counsel. 7. It would be appropriate that the application filed under Order IX, Rule 13 CPC is decided first before proceeding with the matter. 8. The writ petition, as such, is disposed of with direction to the learned court below to consider and decide the application No. B-13 filed under Order IX, Rule 13 CPC in accordance with law expeditiously, as early as possible. 9. However, learned court below shall also consider and decide the counter claim filed by the petitioner in accordance with law expeditiously.