Hon’ble Pankaj Mithal, J.—On 3.7.2015 when this petition and the connected petition was taken up on the request of counsel for the petitioners, the matter was adjourned for today with the specific understanding that both these petitions as well as three revisions arising from the some suit which has given rise to this petition would be decided finally on the next date provided nomination is obtained from the Hon’ble The Chief Justice in the said three revisions also for getting them decided by the same Court. In pursuance of the above, the Hon’ble The Chief Justice has been pleased to direct that all the connected cases be placed before this Court. In furtherance thereof this writ petition alongwith connected writ petition and aforesaid three revisions have been placed in the additional list today.

2. Sri Ajai Shankar Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioners today seeks an adjournment on the pretext that the petitioners have withdrawn instructions from the earlier Senior Counsel and they want to engage another Senior Advocate and that no Senior Advocate is available on account of the elections of the Bar Association.

3. The above request is nothing but an abuse of the process only in order to get the matter adjourned. If the petitioners chooses to withdraw instructions from the counsel at the last moment, they do it at their risk. Accordingly, request for adjournment of this petition on the above grounds is not acceptable.

4. At this stage counsel for the petitioners moved an application seeking adjournment on the ground that the petitioners want to challenge the nomination made by the Hon’ble The Chief Justice before the Supreme Court.

5. The observation for seeking nomination from the Hon’ble The Chief Justice was made in the order dated 3.7.2015 on the consensus of the counsel for the petitioners and, therefore, apparently the petitioners cannot have any grievance regarding the nomination made by the Hon’ble The Chief Justice in order to facilitate speedy and early redressal of the dispute arising from a suit which is pending since 2004 and in which several directions have been issued by this Court for expeditious disposal curtailing all unnecessary adjournments.

6. This apart, the petitioners are free to take recourse of law and challenge the order by which they are aggrieved in the higher Court but adjournment on the said ground cannot be permitted.

7. In view of the above, Application No. Nil of 2015 of date filed in the Court today for adjournment is rejected.

8. In this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution the only prayer made is for a direction upon respondent No. 9, Additional District Judge, Court No. 14, Allahabad not to proceed and decide Original Suit No. 274 of 2004 (Amit Garg and another v. Smt. Tabassum Gazala and others) until and unless the revision Nos. 143 of 2015, 145 of 2015 and 146 of 2015 as well as the inquiry alleged to have been initiated against the presiding officer on the administrative side are decided.

9. The pendency of any inquiry on the administrative side against the presiding officer does not come in the way of the proceedings of the suit as the presiding officer has not been stopped under any order from discharging his judicial functions and from hearing the cases including the above mentioned suit.

10. In none of the revisions referred to above which arise from the interlocutory orders passed in the above suit there is no interim order restraining the Court below from proceeding ahead with the suit.

11. On the contrary, in Civil Revision No. 183 of 2005 between the parties, decided by this Court on 10.5.2006, a categorical direction was issued that the trial Court shall make endeavor to decide the suit without granting any unnecessary adjournment, expeditiously.

12. A similar direction was issued by this Court vide order dated 5.5.2010 while deciding petition No. 151 of 2010 under Article 227 of the Constitution, to the Court concern to decide the suit expeditiously