( 1 ) THIS petition was filed by M/s. Geeta Pump (Private) Limited for quashing the order dated 5/05/1988 contained in Annexure 28 to the writ petition passed by the learned District Judge, Saharanpur in Civil Appeal No. 32 of 1988. By the said order, the learned District Judge had rejected the petitioners application for modification of the order dated 23/04/1998 passed in the appeal staying further proceedings of Execution Case No. 41 of 1998 arising out of the decree appealed against. In connection with the writ petition, an application for grant of interim order of stay was moved on behalf of the petitioner. The said application was opposed on behalf of the respondents. After hearing Mr. Ravi Kiran Jain, counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Sudhir Agarwal, counsel for the respondents, by an order dated 28/05/1998, an interim order was passed as would be apparent from the said order dated 28/05/1998 while calling for the records of as many as nine suits between the petitioner and the respondents in exercise of the power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The said order was supported by detailed reason as can be had from the order dated 28/05/1998 aforesaid.

( 2 ) ). Records of all the cases were sent for and were ultimately received by this Court. The parties had exchanged affidavits. Both Mr. Jain and Mr. Agarwal had addressed the Court at length.

( 3 ) ). After the records were summoned through special messenger on 7/07/1998, Mr. Agarwal, on 21/07/1998 mentioned that record of one suit No. 263 of 1998 between the same parties in which by virtue of an order dated 30/06/1998, recovery of a sum of Rs. 21,93,393. 35 paisa was stayed, be called for. Mr. Pushkar Mehrotra, learned counsel appearing with Mr. Ravi Kiran Jain, for the petitioner opposed the said prayer on the ground that in the interim order dated 30/06/1998, the petitioner was directed to deposit Rs. 5 lakhs within a specified time as a condition for continuance of the interim order dated 30/06/1998, but the petitioner having not deposited the said sum of Rs. 5 lakhs, the condition precedent was not complied with and in consequence whereof, the interim order dated 30/06/1998 passed in suit No. 263 of 1998 did not become operative. However, since the records of all the suits between the parties covering the same subject-matter had already been called for, the records of the said suit No. 263 of 1998 was also called for. At this stage, Mr. Jain having prayed for accommodation on his candid confession that he was unable to prepare himself, the matter was fixed for further hearing on 18/08/1998.

( 4 ) ). On 18/08/1998, Mr. Jain submitted that his junior did not get instruction in the meantime. The petitioner also did not contact Mr. Jain. However, he submitted that the instructing lawyer Mr. Brahmjeet Sharma contacted Mr. Jain over phone and instructed him to appear in the matter on behalf of the petitioner. Mr. Jain submitted that he has informed Mr. Brahmjeet Sharma that he is not supposed to prepare himself on the basis of instruction so conveyed over phone. Considering the predicament of Mr. Jain, who assured that if he is accommodated, he will prepare himself in the meantime, the matter was adjourned to 8/09/1998 when Mr. Jain assisted by Mr. P. K. Jain and Mr. Brahmjeet Sharma, the instructing lawyer, who were present in the Court assured that they will give all possible assistance to the Court in disposing of the matter. On 8/09/1998, Mr. Jain having concluded his arguments, the matter was directed to be listed on 15/09/1998 for further hearing. Mr. Agarwal had concluded his arguments on 15/09/1998. The matter was then fixed for further hearing on 14/10/1998 as prayed for by Mr. Jain. Mr. Jain could not conclude his reply on 14th October, 1998, wherefore, the matter was adjourned on 30/10/1998 for further hearing. On the ground of some difficulties on the part of Mr. Jain, he was accommodated on 30/10/1998 fixing the matter on 12/11/199