Judgment : Mr. R.C. Arya, learned Standing Counsel, appearing for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 has handed over counter affidavit in the Court which is taken on record. 2. Notices were issued to respondent Nos. 3 and 4 by registered post on 17.12.2013 and as per the office report dated 09.04.2014 neither undelivered envelope containing the notices were received back nor any A.D. was received back. In view of the fact that undelivered envelope has not been received back even after expiry of 30 days from the date of issuing the registered letter, therefore, I hold that respondent Nos. 3 and 4 were served by deemed service. 3. Present petition is filed challenging the order dated 25.11.2013 passed by learned Member of the Uttarakhand Human Right Commission, Dehradun in Compliant No. 707 of 2013. Undisputedly, Civil Suit No. 108 of 2013, Swami Rupendra Prakash Vs. Surendra Kumar Sharma and others was filed in the court of Civil Judge (SD) Haridwar seeking permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants not to make any interference in the peaceful possession and management of the plaintiff over the property, in question. Initially, learned Civil Judge (S.D.), vide order dated 04.04.2013, was pleased to issue ex-party ad interim injunction order in favour of the plaintiff/petitioner herein restraining the defendants in making any interference in the possession and management of the plaintiff over the property in question. Feeling aggrieved, defendants preferred A.O. No. 173 of 2013 before this Court assailing ex-parte injunction order dated 04.04.2013. This Court, vide order dated 17.04.2013, was pleased to direct that ex-parte ad interim injunction order dated 04.04.2013 would be kept in abeyance and Civil Judge (S.D.) was directed to decide the ad interim injunction application pending before the learned Trial Court in O.S. No. 108 of 2013 at its own merit in accordance with law. 4. Meanwhile, learned District Magistrate, by exercising jurisdiction, not vested in him, vide order dated 13.05.2013 directed the plaintiff petitioner herein not to make any interference in the possession of defendant No.3/respondent No.4 Gulshan Narang herein. Having obtained order dated 13.05.2013, respondent No.4 Gulshan Narang approached Uttarakhand Human Right Commission and learned Member of the Human Right Commission vide impugned order dated 25.11.2013, directed the S.S.P. Haridwar to ensure compliance of the order dated 13.05.2013 passed by the District Magistrate. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing the present writ petition. 5. Having obtained order dated 13.05.2013, respondent No.4 Gulshan Narang approached Uttarakhand Human Right Commission and learned Member of the Human Right Commission vide impugned order dated 25.11.2013, directed the S.S.P. Haridwar to ensure compliance of the order dated 13.05.2013 passed by the District Magistrate. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing the present writ petition. 5. I have heard Mr. Arvind Vashisth, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. R.C. Arya, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. None is present for respondent Nos. 3 and 4. Perused the record. 6. Learned Civil Judge (SD) has issued ad interim order dated 04.04.2013 in favour of the plaintiff restraining the defendants in making interference in the possession and management of the plaintiff over property, in question. Order dated 04.04.2013 is subjudice before this Court in AO No. 173 of 2013. Meanwhile, during the pendency of the suit, District Magistrate and learned Member of State Human Right Commission have passed just contrary injunction order in favour of the defendant no. 3 against the plaintiff. This action of District Magistrate and learned Member of Human Right Commission speaks in volumes. Malice on the part of both of them can be drawn. Action of District Magistrate and Member of Human Right Commission amounts to interference in the judicial proceedings. It seems that learned District Magistrate as well as learned Member of Human Right Commission have exercised the jurisdiction not vested in them, to help one of the party of the suit. 7. Learned Member of the Uttarakhand Human Right Commission has wrongly entertained the complaint filed by one of the defendant (i.e. respondent No.4 herein) directing implementation of the order dated 13.05.2013 passed by the learned District Magistrate, Haridwar knowing well that civil suit was pending disposal before the competent civil Court wherein this Court had directed the Civil Judge to decide ad interim injunction application at its own merit in accordance with law after hearing both the parties. Learned Member of Human Right Commission had absolutely no jurisdiction to entertain complaint and pass impugned order in a private civil dispute. Learned Member of Human Right Commission had absolutely no jurisdiction to entertain complaint and pass impugned order in a private civil dispute. Otherwise also, neither Executive Magistrate nor Human Right Commission should pass orders in a private civil dispute during the pendency of the civil suit between the parties, therefore, order passed by the learned Member of the Human Right Commission is not only perverse but is also without jurisdiction. Therefore, does not sustain in the eyes of law. 8. Impugned order dated 25th November, 2013, passed by the learned Member of the Human Right Commission as well as order dated 13.05.2013, passed by the District Magistrate, Haridwar are hereby quashed. Writ petition is allowed. Since petitioner was forced and compelled to approach this Court, therefore, petitioner shall be paid exemplary cost of Rs.25,000/- by the respondent No.4 Gulshan Narang. However, it is made clear that while deciding the ad interim injunction application as well as pending civil suit, learned Civil Judge shall not be influenced by any findings recorded hereinbefore and shall decide the same at its own merit in accordance with law.