RAKESH TIWARI, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioners. Learned Standing Counsel has not accepted notice on behalf of respondent No. 1. As re­gards, respondent No. 2 is concerned, affidavit of service is filed by refusal.
(2.) HIS lordship Hon. Mr. Justice V.K. Shukla has been pleased to direct this writ petition to be placed before me as the earlier writ petition for same prayer was dismissed by this Court on 25.9.2006. His lordship's order dated 10.9.2008 is as under : "Earlier tenant had filed Civil Misc. Writ No. 8615 of 2006 (Raghunath Prasad v. Uppar District Judge, Court No. 3, Kanpur Nagar and others). Said writ petition was dismissed on 25.9.2006 and thereafter an application for execution was moved in spite of fact that Civil Misc. Writ No. 8615 of 2006 Raghunath Prasad v. Uppar District Judge, Court No. 3, Kanpur Nagar and others) has been dismissed and it was tenant's writ petition, an application was moved by the landlord for modifying the judgment dated 25.9.2006 and therein prayer was also made for expeditious disposal of the case. Said application was got dismissed as withdrawn and it was made clear by the concerned Judge that dismissal of application as withdrawn will not be any impediment in conclusion of the execution case. After the said order dated 23.5.2007 has been passed present writ petition has been filed on 9.8.2007 with the prayer that writ in the nature of man­damus be issued directing respondent No. 1 to decide the execution Case No. 66 of 2006 arising out of S.C.C. Suit No. 445 of 1998 within the stipulated period. This Court is prima facie of the opinion that earlier attempt was made by landlord to get the execution proceeding expedited and after modifica­tion application was dismissed as not pressed only liberty there was that withdrawal of application will not be any impediment in conclusion of the execution case. Prima facie it appears that present writ petition is nothing but device to overcome the said order passed on earlier occasion. Consequently, it would be much more appropriate that present writ petition be placed be­fore the same Judge i.e. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Tiwari. List this petition in the next cause list before Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Tiwari after taking permission from Hon'ble the Chief Justice." In view of the fact that earlier this Court made it clear vide its order dated 5.9.2006 in Writ Petition No. 8615 of 2006 (Raghunath Prasad v. Uppar District Judge, Court No. 3, Kanpur Nagar and others) that withdrawal of the modification application will not come in the way of deciding execution pro­ceedings and two months' time had been granted by this Court for vacating the premises by the tenant.
(3.) THIS petition being in the nature of a second writ petition for the same cause for overcoming the difficulties from the order in the earlier writ petition has been filed for direction to the respondents to decide the execution case No. 66 of 2006 arising out of S.C.C. Suit No. 445 of 2006 within the stipulated time.;