Rakesh Sharma, J. - (1.) The judgment in the present case was dictated and delivered in the open Court on 12.5.2006, by which the writ petition was dismissed and as per latest law it has become the judgment of the Court. However, on the request of Sri Umesh Chandra, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner, it was not signed. Audacity (sic-audition) was given again on the request of learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner.
(2.) At the outset, Sri Umesh Chandra, learned Senior Advocate has placed reliance on 1930 ILR 455, Maldahi v. Hargoven and AIR 1966 Allahabad 221 (Full Bench), Sangam Lal v. Rent Control and Eviction Officer, Allahabad and others , in support of his submission that a judgement delivered in open Court but not signed and sealed, it can be completely changed. He has relied on para 2 of Sangam Lals case (supra) to persuade the Court to allow him to put forth the case of the petitioner tenant and only thereafter the judgment and order dictated in open Court on 12.5.2006 may be made final/binding or it may be recalled. So far as the proposition of law laid down by the Full Bench in Sangam Lals case (supra) is concerned, I fully agree with the same. The said decision is binding on this Court. The Court has already permitted Sri Umesh Chandra, learned Senior Advocate and Sri B.C. Agarwal to make their submissions on merits of the matter and place their case the way they like.
(3.) Sri Umesh Chandra, learned Senior Advocate, has filed the following applications alongwith affidavits and documents: (1) C.M. Application No. 672 of 2006 for review/recall of the order dated 12.5.2006 passed by this Court. (2) C.M. Application No. 673 of 2006 for recall of the order dated 12.5.2006. (3) Third application filed on 19.5.2006 alongwith certain documents, and (4) Rejoinder affidavit to the objection filed by the landlords Counsel Sri Agendra Sinha.;