JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Raj Baksh Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the opposite parties No.1 to 3.

2. The petitioner has preferred the instant petition seeking the following reliefs:-

"I. issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite party no.2 to pass appropriate order for restraining to the respondent no.6 & 7 not to raise any construction till the finalization of the legal partition of Gata No.392 & 393 situated at Village-Rasoiya, Pargana-Patti, Tehsil Raniganj, District Pratapgarh.

II. issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite party no.2 to pass an appropriate order to the effect that the Suit for partition filed by the petitioner, which kept in the office of the SDM, Raniganj, Pratapgarh, be decided by any competent authority except Opp.Party No.4 as early as possible.

III. issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite party no.2 to pass appropriate order on the representation dated 21.07.2020 made by the petitioner for taking action against the opp.parties No.4 and 5."

3. A Coordinate Bench of this Court passed an order dated 19.10.2020 which reads as under:-

"Sri Akhilesh Pratap Singh learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner and opposite parties No. 4 to 7 have purchased property in gata No. 392 and 393 from one seller. Since there was no partition, therefore, the petitioner had filed a suit for partition under Section 116 of the U.P. Revenue Code before the opposite party No.3 but the same was returned by the office stating that the same can not be accepted without permission of the opposite party No.3/4 as the opposite party No.4 is interested on behalf of the private opposite parties. He further submitted that he has sent the suit through registered post on 15.7.2020 but till date the same has not been registered and no date has been fixed.

Sri Pankaj Srivastava learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel prays for and is granted a week's time to seek instruction as to why the suit filed by petitioner was returned and whether it has been registered or not.

List in the first week of November, 2020 as fresh."

4. In furtherance of the order dated 19.10.2020, the matter was listed again on 04.11.2020 and the order dated 04.11.2020 reads as under:-

"Shri Pankaj Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel submitted that despite letter written to the concerned authority the instructions could not be received. He prays for and is granted a week's further time to seek instructions.

List on 18.11.2020, as fresh.

In case the instructions are not provided, the opposite party no.3 shall appear in person on the date fixed."

5. The matter was again listed on 18.11.2020 wherein neither the instructions had been received nor the opposite party No.3 appeared. Taking note of the aforesaid, this Court passed the order dated 18.11.2020 which reads as under:-

"Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

A coordinate Bench of this Court noticing the contents of paragraph nos. 12 and 13 of the writ petition by means of the order dated 19.10.2020 directed the Additional Chief Standing Counsel to seek instructions as to why the suit of the petitioner was returned and whether the same was registered or not.

Again on 04.11.2020 as the instructions had yet not been received, the matter was again postponed and by means of order dated 04.11.2020, it was provided that in case if the instructions are not provided, the opposite party no. 3 shall appear in person on the next date.

Today, it has been informed by the learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel that neither the instructions are complete nor the opposite party no. 3 is present in the Court despite the order dated 04.11.2020 having been conveyed. It is a serious matter, this Court cannot permit the officials to allow or take the orders pass