Hon’ble S.P. Mehrotra, J.—The present Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been filed by the petitioner, inter-alia, praying for quashing the order dated 6.3.2002 (Annexure-5 to the Writ Petition) passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 15, Kanpur Nagar, (hereinafter also referred to as “the Lower Appellate Court”).

2. It appears that a Suit being Suit No. 728 of 1987 was filed by the petitioner (Nanhey Lal Dubey) against the respondent No. 3 (Mahesh Prasad Gupta) and Smt. Saraswati Devi. It was, inter-alia, prayed in the said Suit that a decree for declaration be passed in favour of the petitioner that he was the sole owner and in possession of House No. 63/15, Harbansh Mohal, Kanpur Nagar, and the respondent No. 3 (Mahesh Prasad Gupta-defendant No. 1 in the said Suit) had no concern, right or share in the said House, and further, that the sale-deed dated 1.6.1979, executed by Smt. Saraswati Devi (defendant No. 2 in the said Suit) in favour of the respondent No. 3 (Mahesh Prasad Gupta-defendant No. 1 in the said Suit), was void, illegal and ineffective.

3. Copy of the plaint of the said Suit has been filed as Annexure-1 to the Writ Petition.

4. It appears from a perusal of the order-sheet of the said Suit (copy whereof has been filed as Annexure-2 to the Writ Petition) that on 28.11.1996, Issues were framed in the said Suit.

5. It further appears from a perusal of the said order-sheet that on 21.5.1997, the Trial Court passed an order directing the Suit to proceed ex-parte, and fixed 26.5.1997 for ex-parte proceeding.

6. On 26.5.1997, it appears from the order-sheet, the Advocates were on strike, and, therefore, 29.5.1997 was fixed for ex-parte evidence through affidavit.

7. On 29.5.1997, the petitioner gave evidence through affidavit. The Trial Court heard the arguments of the learned Counsel for the petitioner on the said date, i.e., 29.5.1997, and fixed 30.5.1997 for judgment.

8. On 30.5.1997, the Presiding Officer was busy in inspection, therefore, 2.7.1997 was fixed for judgment.

9. On 2.7.1997, the Trial Court gave its judgment decreeing the said Suit ex-parte.

10. Thereafter, it appears that an Application being Application No. 3 Ga2 was filed on behalf of the respondent No. 3, inter-alia, praying for setting aside the ex-parte decree dated 2.7.1997. The said Application No. 3 Ga2 was registered as Misc. Case No. 114/74 of 1997.

11. The Trial Court by its order dated 28.4.1999 rejected the said Application No. 3 Ga2, filed on behalf of the respondent No. 3.

12. Copy of the said order dated 28.4.1999 passed by the Trial Court has been filed as Annexure-4 to the Writ Petition.

13. It was, inter-alia, held by the Trial Court that the respondent No. 3 remained absent on various dates after framing of Issues; and that the respondent No. 3 had never signed in English on the entire record, but the Medical Certificates, produced on behalf of the respondent No. 3, bore the signature of the respondent No. 3 in English which made it doubtful that the respondent No. 3 was ill on the dates fixed; and that the respondent No. 3 did not give any Application in his Office for medical leave in regard to the dates for which he submitted Medical Certificates before the Trial Court; and that it was evident that the Medical Certificates were wrongly got prepared by the respondent No. 3; and that the past conduct of the respondent No. 3 also showed that the respondent No. 3 was not interested in the disposal of the Suit, and his sole object was to delay the proceeding in the Suit.

14. Thereupon, it appears that the respondent No. 3 filed an Appeal being Misc. Appeal No. 277 of 1999.

15. By the judgment and order dated 6.3.2002, the Lower Appellate Court allowed the said Misc. Appeal, and further allowed the said Application 3 Ga2 on payment of cost of Rs. 500/-.

16. Copy of the said judgment and order dated 6.3.2002 passed by the Lower Appellate Court has been filed as Annexure-5 to the