( 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 District. The said learned Junior Civil Judge ordered the said I. A. No. 1300 of 1983. On 10-10-1983 the Amin executed the warrant and attached the petition schedule property. Subsequently the said suit was decreed on 7-4-1988. Thereafter, the decree-holder filed E. P. No. 3 of 1990. As stated supra, the respondent being an advocate-clerk, created innumerable hurdles in execution of the decree.

( 4 ) FROM the narration of the above facts, it is seen that on 11-6-1999 the respondent filed E. A. No. 271 of 1990 under Order 21 Rule 106 C. P. C. for setting aside the ex parte order, dated 6-6-1990. The Court below dismissed the said E. A. on 23-8-1990. Having got the case adjourned for some time, the respondent filed another E. A. No. 76 of 1991 on 4-3-1991 for issuing summons to two witnesses. The said E. A. No. 76 of 1991 was dismissed on 12-3-1991. Then the respondent filed E. A. No. 247 of 1991 under S. 151 C. P. C. on 2-7-1991 for reopening the case. The said E. A. No. 247 of 1991 wa allowed on 5-7-1991. it seems that the respondent filed another E. A. under Order 13 Rule 2 C. P. C. on 28-6-1991 for receiving two documents and the Court below received two documents on 11-7-1991. On 4-10-1991 the respondent filed two E. As, one (E. A. No. 488 of 1991) under S. 151 and the other (E. A. No. 489 of 1991) under Order 18 Rule 17 C. P. C. for reopening the case and for recalling the decree-holder. The Court below allowed the said E. A. Nos. 488 and 489 of 1991 on 30-10-1991. When the Court was taking steps to settle the sale proclamation, the respondent filed another application, E. A. No. 90 of 1992, for adjourning the sale for settlement of issues. The said E. A. No. 90 of 1992 was dismissed on 24-2-1992. Again on 29-1-1992 the respondent filed E. A. No. 36 of 1992 under S. 151 C. P. C. for reopening the matter to produce important documents. But, at the same time, he did not specify what were the important documents. After three adjournments, the said E. A. No. 36 of 1992 was allowed on 3-2-1992. Thereafter, the respondent filed E. A. No. 37 of 1992 under Order 18 Rule 17-A C. P. C. on 21-1-1992 for recalling D. W. 2. The said E. A. No. 37 of 1992 was allowed on 3-2-1992. It is not known how and under what circumstances, the learned Junior Civil Judge in office entertained those applications in execution proceedings. Thereafter, on 3-3-1992 the respondent filed E. A. No. 47 of 1992 under Order 13 Rule 2 C. P. C. in E. A. Nos. 36 and 37 of 1992 for receiving the documents. The said E. A. No. 47 of 1992 was allowed on the same day. Thirteen months later, the respondent filed E. A. No. 252 of 1993 under Order 21 Rules 26 and 29 C. P. C. on 10-5-1993 for adjourning the sale and the Court below seems to have dismissed that application on the same day and con