- (1.) A. R Singh, J. This case has some unfortunate history behind it. On 5-5-1993, the case was listed before me for admission, on which date an order was made for its final disposal in August, 1993 and the stay order dated 19-3-1991 was also vacated on that very date. However, subsequently, on the mention made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the order could not be signed and the case was directed to be put up as unlisted on 10-5-1993. For one or the other reason, on the request made by learned Counsel for the petitioner, the case continued to be ad journed from one to another date. Ul timately, on 17-5- 1993, order dated 5-5-1993 was signed. Again on 18-5-1993, the case was finally heard and the writ petition was dismissed with the direction that reasons for the dismissal of the writ peti tion will be given on 21st May, 1993. This course was adopted on account of the fact that hearing of the case lasted on that date throughout the day and no time was left for dictation of the judgment; and the Counsel for the opposite party apprehended that the petitioner may on the next date adopt some course to prolong the pendency of the writ petition. It appears that after 18-5-93 the file of the case was not sent to me for dictation of the reasons of the judgment and it remained in the office.
(2.) AN application was filed before me on behalf of the petitioner by S/sri A. P. Srivastava and P. P. Srivastava on 9-7-1993 asking for rehearing of the writ petition and also for grant of stay order presumably on the ground that petitioner's Counsel Sri VM. Sahai had not been heard on 18-5-1993 when the writ petition was dis missed. This application of the petitioner was also rejected by me vide order dated 9-7-1993. After rejection of the application in the normal course, the file should have been sent to me for dictation of the reasons of my order dated 18-5r93 but again it was retained in the office and due to my trans fer to Lucknow Bench of the Court, file of the case remained in the office and the reasons for the order dated 18-5-93 could not be given. Above abnormal happenings in the case also escaped my notice for the above reasons. Ultimately on 19-11-1996, an ap plication was filed on behalf of the heirs of respondent No. 3 as also by one Narain Das son of Nand Lal, Jwala Prasad respon dent No. 4 and Batuk Prasad, respondent No. 5 for seeking clarification of my order dated 18-5-1993 and 21-5-1993. It is to be noticed that no order dated 21-5-1993 had been passed in the case. This application was filed for getting clarification of the position regarding pendency of the writ petition in the light of certain develop ments, which had taken place on account of non-dictation of the reasons by me pur suant to the passing of the order on 18-5- 1993 dismissing the writ petition.
(3.) IT appears that so as to stall the execution proceedings, an affidavit was filed on behalf of the petitioner making a representation to the execution Court that the writ petition was still pending in this Court which had not been decided till then. In support of his affidavit, a ques tion-answer having been obtained from the Court's Registry was also filed for giving proof of the pendency of the writ petition. IT was in these circumstances that the application dated 7-11-1996 was filed before me by the decree holder. On the said application, 20-11-1996 was fixed and the application was directed to be put up with the record of the writ petition. Learned Counsel for the ap plicant was also directed to inform the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the case willbe taken up on 20-11-1996.;