S.P.MEHROTRA,J. - (1.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner states that he does not want to press prayer No. (a) made in the writ petition. In view of this statement, learned Counsel for the petitioner is permitted to delete prayer No. (a) made in the writ petition.
(2.) THE present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, inter alia, praying for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Additional District Judge, Court No. 4, Jhansi (respondent No. 2) to decide the S.C. Revision No. 183 of 2001, Purushottam v. Smt. Roma Chaudhary, within a short period as stipulated by this Court. It appears that the petitioner filed an execution application seeking to execute the decree dated 30 -8 -1997 passed in S.C.C. Suit No. 22 of 1998. The said execution application was numbered as Execution Case No. 16 of 2000.
(3.) FROM the allegations made in the writ petition, it further appears that in the said execution case, the respondent No. 1 filed an application under Order XXI, Rules 97, 98 and 100 and Section 151 Code of Civil Procedure. By the order dated 7 -9 -2001 (Annexure No. 3 to the writ petition), the said application filed by the respondent No. 1 was rejected.;