( 1 ) SINCE the Sub-Inspector of Police produced the respondent before this Court, the N. B. W. against the latter (respondent) is recalled.

( 2 ) THE facts of this case reveal in what callous manner the legal fraternity represent their clients before the Courts. Had the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-auction-purchaser filed application for correcting the mistakes that crept in the sale certificate, dated 9-9-1997, issued by the Court below pursuant to the sale of schedule property on 10-5-1993, the respondent, an advocate-clerk, would not have stalled the execution roceedings by filing application after application for long one decade.

( 3 ) THE facts of this case are that one Partti Ramanna filed suit, O. S. No. 356 of 1983, on the file of the learned Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tadepalli Gudem for recovery of a sum of Rs. 4000. 00 with interest on the foot of a promissory-note executed by the respondent herein. Along with the said suit, the said Ramanna also filed interlocutory application, I. A. No. 1300 of 1983, seeking attachment of 1/3rd of the petition schedule property situated at Madhavaram village, Tadepalli Gudem Mandal, West Godavari