JUDGMENT : U.C. Dhyani, J. By means of present writ petition, the petitioners seek following reliefs, among others: “(i) Issue writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quashing the order dated 21.7.2016 passed by the learned District Judge rejecting the application of the petitioner u/s 24 of C.P.C. (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction by allowing the application moved by the petitioner u/s 24 of C.P.C. dated 14.7.2016 and transfer the proceeding of Civil Suit no. 77 of 2014 in the Court of learned District Judge keeping in view of the fact that the Hon’ble Supreme Court already stipulated the time for expediting the suit which is going to be expired on 28.8.2016. (iii) Issue a writ, order or direction to the learned District Judge to expedite the O.S. no. 77 of 2014 Maa Chandi Devi Temple Trust vs. Mahan Rohit Giri and other within the period as stipulated by Hon’ble Supreme Court.” 2. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that the Court of 1st Additional District Judge, Haridwar, where the OS no. 77 of 2014 is pending, is vacant. There is a direction dated 27.02.2015 of Hon’ble Apex Court, which runs as below: “Since the impugned order is in the nature of an interim order, we decline to exercise our jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. The Suit is of the year 2012. After hearing learned counsel for the parties to the lis, we feel that the hearing of the suit requires to be expedited. Therefore, we direct the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Haridwar to conclude the hearing of the suit as early as possible, at any rate within twelve months’ time from today. We request both the parties to co-operate in the early disposal of the Suit. The learned Trial Judge shall decide the suit purely based on oral and documentary evidence that may be led in by both the parties, without being influence by any of the observations and findings made by the High Court while disposing of the Appeal from Order no. 610 of 2014, dated 20.01.2015. The special leave petition is disposed of.” 3. The learned Trial Judge shall decide the suit purely based on oral and documentary evidence that may be led in by both the parties, without being influence by any of the observations and findings made by the High Court while disposing of the Appeal from Order no. 610 of 2014, dated 20.01.2015. The special leave petition is disposed of.” 3. Thereafter, the aforesaid order was modified by the Hon’ble Apex Court, vide order dated 01.4.2016 as follows: “We allow this application to the extent that the learned Trial Court may decide the suit within 1 ½ years from the date of the original order passed by this Court instead of one year originally granted. We also make it clear that the parties shall not take unnecessary adjournment and the Trial Court would be strict about this.” 4. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the said period is going to expire on 29.8.2016, and therefore, a direction be given that the said Suit be heard by District Judge himself in the absence of any other Additional District Judge at Haridwar. 5. An application under section 24 C.P.C. was given by the petitioners before learned District Judge, Haridwar, who dismissed the said application vide order dated 21.7.2016. 6. Relevant portion of section 24 C.P.C. reads as under: “24. General power of transfer and withdrawal- (1) On the application of any of the parties and after notice to the parties and after hearing such of them as desired to be heard, or of its own motion without such notice, the High Court or the District Court may at any stage- (a) transfer any suit, appeal or other proceeding pending before it for trial or disposal to any Court subordinate to it and competent to try or dispose of the same, or (b) withdraw any suit, appeal or other proceeding pending in any Court subordinate to it, and (i) try or dispose of the same; or (ii) transfer the same for trial or disposal to any Court Subordinate to it and competent to try or dispose of the same. (ii) retransfer the same for trial or disposal to the Court from which it was withdrawn.” 7. Considering the facts and circumstances, which have been narrated herein above, this Court directs, without notice to the respondents, that OS no. (ii) retransfer the same for trial or disposal to the Court from which it was withdrawn.” 7. Considering the facts and circumstances, which have been narrated herein above, this Court directs, without notice to the respondents, that OS no. 77 of 2014 shall be recalled from the Court of 1stAdditional District Judge, Haridwar and is made over to District Judge, Haridwar, for disposal according to law. 8. Order accordingly. 9. It is made clear that, if in near future, there is posting of any Additional District Judge in District Haridwar, learned District Judge shall be at liberty to make over/transfer OS no. 77 of 2014 to such Additional District Judge, in accordance with law. 10. This disposes of the present writ petition at the threshold.