The convenience of parties or advocates cannot dictate the scheduling of matters, and attempts to frustrate tax recovery through legal maneuvers are an abuse of the court's process.

1. - Mr. Pareek prays for adjournment of these matters on the ground that Shri Jagdeep Dhanker, Senior Advocate has gone to Delhi. It is hardly any ground to adjourn the matters. It is the option and the choice of the senior Advocate to remain here or go to Delhi. For his convenience the matters cannot be adjourned. These matters have come up for preliminary hearing on 24.4.2001. The Court has given direction to respondent to afford an opportunity of hearing on the objections they have against attachment and sale of the concerned properties and if the objections are lodged to decide the same within a period of seven days from that day. Till then the properties will not be auctioned, the court ordered. The objections have been filed by the petitioner and the same have been rejected by the respondent No. 1. The matter has come up for consideration in the Court on 25.7.2001 and the petition was admitted and it was fixed for hearing on 31.7.2001. The Court has ordered that till then the stay earlier granted shall continue. From 1.8.2001 the stay is not continued. The matter was placed in Court on 31.7.2001 but it was not reached. Nobody has made a request for the extension of stay earlier granted and it is not extended.

2. Mr. Pareek submitted that the matter may be taken up for hearing tomorrow and the interim relief may be extended. So far as hearing of the matter is concerned, I fail to see to give any priority to the matter when the counsel appearing for the petitioner is not available. The Court cannot fix the matter at the convenience of the parties or the Advocates. I do not find any ground to extend the stay earlier granted and which is not in force with effect from 1.8.2001, already discontinued. It is a matter where the property in dispute is to put to auction for recoveries of the excise duties from the licencee. This amount is in the tune of Rs. 28.5 crores approximately as is come out from the reply filed by the department. The grievance of the petitioner is that it has nothing to do with the dues of licencee. He was not the licensee or the partner of the licensee. These are the matter which are to be considered at the time of final hearing of the case. These are the disputed questions of fact and the appropriate remedy for the petitioner possibly would have been to file the civil suit. The petitioner is making all attempts to frustrate the recovery of the excise duty. He filed the civil suit before the trial court challenging the recovery. The learned trial court rejected the application filed by the petitioner for temporary injunction on 4.4.2001. The matter was taken up by the petitioner in the appeal and the appellate court has also rejected the appeal on 16.4.2001. When the petitioner lost in the civil courts to get the desired interim relief, he filed an application for withdrawal of the suit. The reasons given for withdrawal is that there is a technical defect in the suit and the civil court has no jurisdiction to hear the matter the liberty to file the fresh civil suit has also been prayed. This application has been considered by the trial court on 19.4.2001. The learned trial court has observed that the counsel for the petitioner who was plaintiff there, has failed to show any technical defect in the suit. So far as question of jurisdiction of the court is concerned, the court has said that it cannot be said to be a technical defect. Be that as it may, ultimately the suit was permitted to be withdrawn. The petitioner then filed this petition in this Court on 20.4.2001. So this petition prima facie though nothing can be said finally at this stage appears to be an attempt to abuse the process of the court. This approach of the petitioner to take chance in the civil court for stay of recovery of tax dues and on failure to withdraw the suit and filed this writ petition deserves to be deprecated. Sole purpose and object of the filing of this writ petition prima facie seems to be not to pay dues of the reve