JUDGMENT : K.M. Jospeh, J. Appellant is the writ petitioner. A plot of land was allotted by the first respondent to the second respondent on 08.02.2007. It was subject to conditions relating to payment of cost. According to the appellant/writ petitioner, the second respondent was unable to make payment and approached the appellant and, in fact, appellant has made several payments in the aggregate, totaling Rs. 6.44 crores. According to the appellant, this was done on the basis of a Memorandum dated 30th July, 2007. Thereafter, it is the further case of the appellant that a request was made to the first respondent to enter the name of the appellant as a co-allottee. This was a joint request, according to the appellant, made by the appellant and the second respondent. It is the further case of the appellant that, in fact, the Assistant Housing Commissioner granted permission by proceedings dated 26.07.2008 subject to certain conditions. It is the further case of the appellant that, in fact, by proceedings dated 19.08.2008, the first respondent intimated its decision to grant permission for the appellant to be joined as a co-allottee. In the meantime, another development took place in the form of attachment of the property in question by the Delhi High Court. The attachment continued till 03.06.2011. On 10.08.2011, the order, which is impugned in the writ petition, came to be passed by the first respondent intimating that the appellant will be joined as a co-alloottee subject to payment of certain sums, which included a sum towards penal interest. 2. The learned Single Judge took the view that, in view of the facts as we have noted in the form of an attachment order of the Delhi High Court, it is not open to the first respondent to impose penalty and, at the same time, took note of yet another development in the form of a civil suit filed by the second respondent before the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) Rishikesh questioning the Memorandum of Understanding. Therefore, taking note of the civit suit, the Court passed the following directions: “Present petition is thus disposed of with the direction that Parishad shall proceed with the request of addition of the name of the petitioner as co-allottee as per the final decision in the civil suit. If in the civil suit, transactions between petitioner and respondent no. Therefore, taking note of the civit suit, the Court passed the following directions: “Present petition is thus disposed of with the direction that Parishad shall proceed with the request of addition of the name of the petitioner as co-allottee as per the final decision in the civil suit. If in the civil suit, transactions between petitioner and respondent no. 2 are held to be valid then it goes without saying that the petitioner shall be entitled for addition of his name as co-allottee subject to the payment of usual charges. However, if transactions are held to be fake and fabricated and are declared not binding between the parties, petitioner shall not be entitled for addition of his name. Meanwhile balance/outstanding amount of the cost of the allotted land shall be paid to the Parishad/respondent no. 1 by respondent no. 2. In the event of any default in making payment of outstanding amount, it would be open to the Parishad/respondent no. 1 to proceed in accordance with law against the allottee/respondent no. 2. Payment of balance amount by respondent no. 2 shall of course be subject to final judgment in the pending suit. Learned Civil Judge is requested to explore every possibility for early decision in the suit. Learned Civil Judge is further requested not to grant any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties.” 3. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant is before us. 4. We have heard Mr. Assem Mehrotra, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Pankaj Purhoit, learned counsel for respondent no. 1. Though notice was issued and served on the party respondents, there is no appearance for them. 5. When this matter came up on an earlier occasion, we felt that, to do justice in the matter and taking note of the pendency of the Civil Suit, we, after calling for the report from the Judge, directed the Civil Judge to expedite the hearing of the suit and to dispose of the same within six months. The appeal was kept pending. 6. When the matter was taken up, the learned counsel for the appellant would point out the following subsequent developments. It appears that the second respondent/plaintiff in the suit sought leave of the Court to withdraw the suit with liberty to file a fresh suit. Though it was opposed, the trial Court allowed the application. The appeal was kept pending. 6. When the matter was taken up, the learned counsel for the appellant would point out the following subsequent developments. It appears that the second respondent/plaintiff in the suit sought leave of the Court to withdraw the suit with liberty to file a fresh suit. Though it was opposed, the trial Court allowed the application. The learned counsel for the appellant would point out that it is an abuse of the process of Court. He would further submit that the plaintiff has instituted a suit showing different valuation in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) and the said suit also appears to call in question the Memorandum of Understanding. He would, in fact, submit that the substantial basis of the suit is the allegation that the shareholders of the company had not given their permission for entering into the Memorandum of Understanding. Therefore, he would submit that having sunk a huge sum of money into the project, the Court may at least direct the first respondent to enter the name of the appellant as a co-allottee. He would further submit that the possession of the plot, which is with the first respondent, be delivered to the appellant. On being queried as to the project, which the appellant intends to undertake on the land, the learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the project is construction of flats. He would submit that if the plot is delivered over to the appellant, the appellant is prepared to undertake that it will be subject to the condition that he will not plead any equity. 7. According to Sri Pankaj Purohit, learned counsel for the first respondent, however, though a decision may have taken by the impugned order dated 10.08.2011 to co-opt the appellant as an allottee, it was made subject to certain conditions. Those conditions were not complied with. He would point out that apparently the parties had fallen apart. It is submitted that the suit is pending and there cannot be joining of the appellant as a co-allottee without the permission of the original allottee. 8. No doubt, the learned counsel for the appellant would point out the fact that huge amounts have been paid by the appellant. According to the first respondent, the amounts have been deposited on behalf of the first respondent. 9. 8. No doubt, the learned counsel for the appellant would point out the fact that huge amounts have been paid by the appellant. According to the first respondent, the amounts have been deposited on behalf of the first respondent. 9. After noticing the facts as are brought out through the submissions and noticing the contours of jurisdiction of the Writ Court, we would think that it may not be appropriate for us to grant reliefs, which have been sought by the appellant, namely, joining the appellant as co-allottee and the delivery of possession of the plot to the appellant. It is true that this Court had issued a direction to the Civil Judge (Senior Division) and it was expected that the hearing of the suit would be expedited so that there could be no legal impediment in the consideration of the appellant’s case; but, we are faced with a situation, where, in place of the earlier suit, there is a new suit, but the fact of the matter is that there is still a suit pending. The questions are, in other words, pending before the Court as to the effect of the Memorandum. It is, no doubt, true that the learned counsel for the appellant points out that the plaintiff has not called in question the request to join appellant as a co-allottee. We do notice the conduct of the respondents in not responding in the matter and keeping away from this Court. But even then, we would think that considering the jurisdiction of the Court, it may not be appropriate for us to grant relief as such to the appellant. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant would point out the direction issued by the learned Single Judge, namely, the direction that the balance amount shall be paid by the second respondent and the further directions. 10. Learned Single Judge has not granted the reliefs as sought for by the appellant except, of course, in regard to not to impose penalty. We do not think that we need interfere, except to direct that the Civil Judge (Junior Division) will make every effort to dispose of Suit No. 89 of 2015 at the earliest having regard to the urgency for the appellant, as also the fact that considerable time has already been spent in proceeding with the earlier suit. 11. The Appeal is, accordingly, disposed of.