SITARAM Vs. IST ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE JAUNPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRAKASH Krishna, J. This is an unfortunate litigation. The litigation has come to this Court second time. The petitioners of writ petition No. 68026 of 2006 and of writ petition No. 8129 of 2007 though lost up to the Apex Court have audacity to say before the trial Court that the judgment of the Apex Court which in turn confirmed the judgment of the High Court is liable to be ignored and be treated as null and void as the orders were obtained by fraud without disclosing any particulars as to how the fraud has been committed.

(2.) ALL the three writ petitions were heard together on the request made by the learned Counsel namely Shri Dhan Prakash Agrawal and Rajiv Sharma for the petitioners. The argument was advanced in the leading case being writ petition No. 68026 of 2006 which arises out of an ad interim injunction matter. It was agreed upon by the Counsel for the parties that the fate of other writ petitions is dependant upon the outcome of the writ petition No. 68026 of 2006. The facts of the writ petition No. 68026 of 2006 are, therefore, noticed.

(3.) THE special leave petition was dismissed subsequently by following order dated 5th of May, 2006 : "heard. THE Special Leave Petition is dismissed. However, Counsel prays for some time to vacate the suit premises which is not opposed by the Counsel for the respondent who is present on caveat. Accordingly, the petitioners, are granted time up to 1st November, 2006 to vacate the suit premises subject to filing of usual undertaking within four weeks from today. THEy should hand over the vacant possession of the suit premises to the respondent on or before 1st November, 2006, if not already vacated. "