Hon’ble Shishir Kumar, J.—The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order-dated 27.10.1999 passed by the respondent No. 3 in Civil Revision No. 7 of 1998, Secretary, Jhansi Development Authority and another v. Ram Narain (Annexure 14 to the writ petition).

2. The facts arising out of the writ petition are that a suit was filed by the petitioner which was numbered as Suit No. 418 of 1993 against one Rakesh Tandon and another before the Court of Munsif Jhansi for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering in making any constructions in any manner whatsoever over the land of Plot No. 1612 area 18 x 09 situated in village Lahar Gird, Jhansi. The allegations made in the plaint were that the petitioner had purchased the said area by a registered sale deed on 21.7.1990 from Prakash Narain Tandon Mukhtar-e-am and son of the owner. His name was entered in the revenue record. The Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 have no right or authority to interfere in the proposed construction

3. The defendant Nos. 1 and 2 contested the suit and denying the allegations made in the plaint on the ground that Prakash Narain Tandon is not the owner and had got no authority to execute the sale deed. It was also submitted that a trust was created on 9.7.1946 and two-third share of the land is included in the trust property. It was also pleaded by the defendant respondent that Suit No.488 of 1991 in respect of the same property is pending in the Court of Munsif Jhansi and the suit is not cognizable by the Civil Courts. On the pleadings of the parties the trial Court has framed nine issues on 5.3.1994. Thereafter, issue Nos. 10 and 11 were added on 13.2.1996. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the trial Court while disposing of the application for temporary injunction directed the parties to maintain status quo. The trial Court decided issues Nos. 4, 5 and 11 as preliminary issues. Issue Nos. 4 and 11 relate to the applicability of Section 10 of C PC while issue No. 5 relates to the jurisdiction of the Court. The trial Court after hearing the counsel for both the parties have decided the issues by its order dated 24.11.1997 in negative, in favour of petitioner.

4. Aggrieved by the order passed by the trial Court the defendant respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed a revision before the respondent No. 3, who was posted, as Vlth Additional District Judge.

5. An application was filed on 12.8.1999 with a request that there is an apprehension of not getting justice, therefore, it will be appropriate that the revision be transferred to any other Court. The reason stated in the said application that in Case No. 11 of 1992 (Kailash Narain Tandon v. State of U.P. and others) decided by the same presiding officer that is respondent No.3 in favour of the defendant and the case was being conducted by one Ram Ratan Agarwal working as DGC and the same plot and the property purchased by the petitioner from Sri Kailash Narain Tandon and the respondent No. 3 has decided the case against him on 30.5.1998, therefore, it was requested that in the interest of justice it will be appropriate that the matter be sent to another Court but the presiding officer has not passed any order and initiated contempt proceedings against the petitioner and issued a show cause notice as to why the contempt proceeding should not be drawn and rejected the application on the same day i.e. 28.9.1999 and the petitioner was also taken into custody by the Court for some time. The order dated 28.9.1999 is being quoted below :

“The application is frivolous and misconceived. It contains several averments which cast doubt on the impartiality of this Court. However, there is no reason why this court should not proceed to hear this case. The application is rejected. Applicant to show cause why proceedings be not drawn against him for averments made in the affidavit accompanying this application within 15 days. Put up on 14.10 99.”

6. When the petitioner cam