JUDGMENT D.S. Sinha, J. - By means of the instant application the petitioner has prayed for recalling or setting aside the order dated 15-2-1988. whereby his Civil Misc. Transfer Application No. 66 of 1987, Ramji Lal Sharma v. Civil Judge, Allahabad for transfer of Execution Case No. 38 of 1984, Rajendra Kumar and others v. Ramji Lal Sharma from the Court of Civil Judge, Allahabad to some other Court in another district, has been dismissed for want of prosecution. 2. Before considering the prayer it is apposite to notice antecedent events and certain material facts and circumstances as they emerge from the record of this case and the record of (1) Writ Petition No. 19480 of 1985, Ramji Lal v. Civil Judge, Allahabad and others, (2) Writ Petition No. 7704 of 1986, Ramji Lal Sharma, Advocate v. Civil Judge, Allahabad and others, (3) Civil Misc. Transfer Application No. 13 of 1987, Ramji Lal Sharma, Advocate v. Civil Judge, Allahabad and others, and (4) Civil Misc. Contempt Application No. 607 of 1987, Ramji Lal Sharma, Advocate v. D. S. Sinha and another, and a reintertissued and intertwined. 3. Shri Sharma, a lawyer cum litigant, is judgment-debtor in Civil Suit No. 191 of 1970, instituted in the Court of Civil Judge, Allahabad for his ejectment from the premises No. 1-D/14, Bundh Road, Allahabad. The suit which was instituted in the year 1970 lingered for about a decade and was decreed on 11-4-1980. The decree of ejectment was, it appears, challenged before the District Judge, Allahabad, by means of a revision which was ultimately dismissed and decree for ejectment against Sri Sharma stood confirmed. 4. On 21-8-1984, the decree-holders initiated proceedings in the Court of Civil Judge, Allahabad for execution of the decree of ejectment against Sri Sharma. The said execution proceeding is numbered as Execution Case No. 38 of 1984. Upon this institution of the execution proceeding the executing Court issued notice to Sri Sharma. The notice to Sri Sharma was issued by registered post also. On 13-9-1985 the service of notice on Sri Sharma was held to be sufficient and, as he was not present, the Court ordered the decree-holders to take further steps for delivery of possession. The decree-holders took requisite steps and on 16-9-1985 the Court issued a writ for possession and ordered the submission of report of compliance by 23-10-1985. 5. On 13-9-1985 the service of notice on Sri Sharma was held to be sufficient and, as he was not present, the Court ordered the decree-holders to take further steps for delivery of possession. The decree-holders took requisite steps and on 16-9-1985 the Court issued a writ for possession and ordered the submission of report of compliance by 23-10-1985. 5. On 18-9-1985, Sri Sharma appeared before the Executing Court and filed application No. 21-C for recalling the order dated 16-9-1985 whereby writ of possession was issued. He also prayed for stay of further proceedings with regard to his dispossession. Consequently, the writ for delivery of possession was recalled and 5-10-1985 was fixed for disposal of the application of Sri Sharma. On 5-10-1985 the case was adjourned for 2-11-1985. The case was further adjourned to 16-11-1985. 6. On 16-11-1985, Sri Sharma made certain application praying for time to file objection and for adjournment on the ground of "eye trouble". The adjournment prayed for was granted on payment of Rs. 30/- as cost and 20-12-1985 was fixed for disposal of the objections of Sri Sharma. 7. On 17-12-1985, Sri Sharma filed in this Court Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 19480 of 1985, Ramji Lal v. Civil Judge, Allahabad and others, challenging the order of the Civil Judge, Allahabad, dated 16-9-1985 whereby the writ for possession was issued and the report of compliance was called for. Along with the writ petition an application for interim relief praying for stay of further proceedings in the Execution Case No. 38 of 1984 and direction for not ejecting him was also made. The order of the Civil Judge, Allahabad, was challenged mainly on the ground that it was passed without serving any notice upon Sri Sharma. 8. From the requisite endorsements made on the writ petition it transpires that it had been prepared on 31-10-1985 and on that date itself the notice was served on the Chief Standing Counsel of U. P. Government notifying that the writ petition would be moved on 1-11-1985. On 1-11-1985 the writ petition was not moved. Subsequently, notice was given for 29-11-1985, 30-11-1985, 2-12-1985, 13-12-1985, 16-12-1985 and finally for 17-12-1985 on which date the writ petition was actually filed. 9. On 1-11-1985 the writ petition was not moved. Subsequently, notice was given for 29-11-1985, 30-11-1985, 2-12-1985, 13-12-1985, 16-12-1985 and finally for 17-12-1985 on which date the writ petition was actually filed. 9. Significantly, in the writ petition Sri Sharma deliberately suppressed and did not disclose the fact that he had already appeared before the execution Court on 18-9-1985; that he had moved an application for recalling the order dated 16-9-1985, impugned in the writ petition, and for 'stay of further proceedings in the execution case; that the writ of possession had been recalled; that he had been granted time to file objection; and that 20-12-1985 was fixed-for disposal of his objection. The writ petition was, however, dismissed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. M. Sahai on the ground that the proper remedy for Sri Sharma was to approach the Civil Judge, Allahabad. Thus, the obvious object of Sri Sharma to get the execution proceedings stayed from this Court was frustrated. 10. Having failed in his attempt to get the execution proceedings stayed by filing the aforesaid writ petition Sri Sharma appeared before the executing Court on 20-12-1985 and made an application for further time to file objection and adjournment, again on the ground of "eye trouble". The time prayed for was allowed and the case was adjourned to 21-2-1986 on payment of Rs. 30/- as cost. On 21-2-1986, Sri Sharma again sought adjournment on the ground of "eye trouble". The adjournment prayed for was again granted on payment of Rs. 50/- as cost and 21-3-1986 was fixed. On 21-3-1986 also Sri Sharma applied for adjournment on the ground of "eye trouble" which was allowed on payment of Rs. 70/- as cost and 3-4-1986 was fixed. On 3-4-1986 too Sri Sharma came forward with the prayer for further adjournment. Of course, this time the ground was "dysentery and fever". The desired adjournment was granted on payment of Rs. 100/- as cost and 25-4-1986 was fixed for further proceedings. Encouraged by his success in getting adjournment on the previous dates Sri Sharma on 25-4-1986 again applied for adjournment on slightly modified ground, namely, "Chronic dysentery with temperature". On this date the Court took serious notice of the factum of non-payment of the costs by Sri Sharma imposed upon him earlier. However, the Court granted further adjournment on payment of Rs. 100/- as cost and fixed 22-5-1986. 11. On this date the Court took serious notice of the factum of non-payment of the costs by Sri Sharma imposed upon him earlier. However, the Court granted further adjournment on payment of Rs. 100/- as cost and fixed 22-5-1986. 11. On 22-5-1986 Sri Sharma moved an application praying for the condonation of the costs imposed upon him, modification and grant of time to deposit costs. It appears that the prayer for condonation of the costs was rejected. However, he was granted time, up to 29-5-1986 for paying the costs and filing objection and 29-5-1986 was fixed for disposal thereof. 12. On 29-5-1986, Sri Sharma, as usual, came out with the prayer for adjournment and for modification of the order with regard to the payment of costs. He also prayed six weeks' further time for payment of costs. The time for payment of costs was extended by 10-7-1986 which was the next date fixed in the case for further proceedings. 13. On 3-7-1986, Sri Sharma instituted in this Court Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 7704 of 1986, Ramji Lal Sharma, Advocate v. Civil Judge, Allahabad and others challenging the orders of the Civil Judge dated 16-11-1985, 20-12-1985, 21-2-1986, 21-3-1986, 3-4-1986 and 25-4-1986 whereby he had been directed to pay costs for the adjournments granted to him on those dates. 14. A perusal of the record of this writ petition reveals that it was prepared on 22-5-1986 and notified to the Chief Standing Counsel of U. P. Government for being moved on 23-5-1986. The writ petition was not moved on 23-5-1986 as notified, presumably, because Sri Sharma had already succeeded in getting extension of time for payment of costs by 10-7-1986. The writ petition was again notified to the Chief Standing Counsel for being moved on 23-6-1986 but, for the reasons best known to Sri Sharma, the petition was not filed on 23-6-1986. Finally, it was notified for being filed on3-7-1986 and was so filed. The writ petition was again notified to the Chief Standing Counsel for being moved on 23-6-1986 but, for the reasons best known to Sri Sharma, the petition was not filed on 23-6-1986. Finally, it was notified for being filed on3-7-1986 and was so filed. The writ petition was admitted by Hon. B. L. Yadav, J. Besides the admission of the Writ Petition, amazingly, Sri Sharma succeeded in procuring an ad interim order staying further proceedings in Execution Case No. 38 of 1984, Rajendra Kumar and others v. Ramji Lai Sharma, pending in the Court of Civil Judge, Allahabad, until further orders although the petition was directed only against the orders imposing costs and it is well settled that interim relief cannot travel beyond the final and ultimate relief. 15. Shri Sharma filed the interim order dated 3-7-1986 before the Execution Court on 10-7-1986 and achieved the goal of obstructing the progress of the Execution case. 16. The decree-holders appeared in this Court. They filed counter-affidavit in the above writ petition and also moved application praying the Court to allow the petition, quash the orders impugned therein and to vacate the interim order dated 3-7-1986. The matter came up before Hon. B.L. Yadav, J. on 17-9-1986. He directed the case to come up with the record of Writ Petition No. 1948 of 1985, Ramji Lai v. Civil Judge, Allahabad and others which was filed by Sri Sharma on 17-12-1985 and was rejected by Hon. R. M. Sahai, J. The Court also directed the name of Sri Sharma to be shown in the cause list. Thereafter the case came up before the Court for consideration on many occasions. Lastly, it was listed on 22-10-1986 before Hon. Anshuman Singh, J. On this date the interim order dated 3-7-1986 was vacated. It would be relevant to quote the order dated 22-10-1986. "Hon'ble Anshuman Singh, J. The case is listed peremptorily. The counsel for the petitioner is sending illness slip regularly. Even today counsel for the petitioner has sent illness slip. There is none to press the application. Interim order dated 3-7-1986 is vacated. Dt: 22/10/86 A. Singh." As is evident from the record of the case the petitioner was appearing in the case in person and was not represented by any counsel. The expression 'counsel for the petitioner' in the above order, obviously, relates to Sri Sharma. 17. There is none to press the application. Interim order dated 3-7-1986 is vacated. Dt: 22/10/86 A. Singh." As is evident from the record of the case the petitioner was appearing in the case in person and was not represented by any counsel. The expression 'counsel for the petitioner' in the above order, obviously, relates to Sri Sharma. 17. On interim order dated 3-7-1986 being vacated the execution proceedings were to proceed further. December 12, 1986 was the date fixed for disposal before the execution Court. Sri Sharma appeared there and resumed the familiar tactics of praying adjournment. The adjournment prayed for, it appears, was allowed but this time it was short adjournment and 16-12-1986 was fixed for further proceedings. On 16-12-1986 there was no sitting of the Court and 2-1-1987 was fixed. On 2-1-1987 again there was no sitting of the Court and the case was fixed for 8-1-1987. On 8-1-1987 too there was no sitting and the case was posted for 17-1-1987. On 17-1-1987 again the case was adjourned on account of the fact that there was no sitting of the Court and it was fixed for 24-1-1987. 18. On 23-1-1987, Sri Sharma filed in this Court Civil Misc. Transfer Application No. 13 of 1987 under S. 24 of the Civil Procedure Code 1908, making certain allegations against Sri S.N. Pandey, who was then presiding the court of Civil Judge where the Execution case is pending. In the transfer application allegations against Sri Mahesh Chandra Saxena, stenographer, attached to the court of Civil Judge Allahabad, also were made. On the basis of the allegations made in the transfer application it was prayed that the Execution case be transferred to some other court. The transfer application came up before Hon. A.P. Misra, J. on 28-1-1987. On this date notice, fixing 23-3-1987, was directed to be issued to the opposite-parties. The report of the,Presiding Officer was called for and further proceedings in the Execution Case No. 38 of 1984 were stayed. Once more Sri Sharma succeeded in stalling the progress of the Execution Case. 19. Later on the transfer application came up for adjudication before Hon. Om Prakash J. on 14-4-1987. On that date it transpired that the court of Civil Judge, Allahabad, was no longer presided by Sri S.N. Pandey inasmuch as he had been shifted to some other Court. Once more Sri Sharma succeeded in stalling the progress of the Execution Case. 19. Later on the transfer application came up for adjudication before Hon. Om Prakash J. on 14-4-1987. On that date it transpired that the court of Civil Judge, Allahabad, was no longer presided by Sri S.N. Pandey inasmuch as he had been shifted to some other Court. It further transpired that the Stenographer had also been shifted from the court of Civil Judge, Allahabad. In the circumstances the transfer application was found to have become infructuous and it was dismissed accordingly. However, while dismissing the transfer application this Court hoped that the Execution Court would decide the execution proceeding expeditiously. Following extract from the order dated 14-4-1987 passed by Hon. Om Prakash, J. deserves reproduction : "..........This case was listed peremptorily for today. After the list was revised, a notice was put up that the cases fixed peremptorily would be taken at 3 p.m. but none appeared on behalf of the applicant, who appeared in person on the last date. For the reasons, the application for transfer is dismissed It is hoped that the court below will decide the execution Proceeding expeditiously. The stay order is vacated..." The aforesaid transfer application having been dismissed and the stay order having been vacated the Execution Case was to proceed expeditiously as desired by this court in the order quoted above. But Sri Sharma, it appears, was determined not to allow the execution proceedings to progress. He, therefore, put a clog in the wheel by moving another Civil Misc. Transfer Application No. 66 of 1987, Ramji Lal Sharma, Advocate v. Civil Judge, Allahabad and others, under S. 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, on 8-5-1987. Praying for transfer of "the Execution Case No. 38 of 1984 (Rajendra Kumar and others v. R.L. Sharma) pending in the court of Civil Judge, Allahabad, to some other court of competent jurisdiction in some other district, except Allahabad, of the State of Uttar Pradesh". In the transfer application he also prayed for the stay of further proceedings in the execution case on the grounds mentioned in paragraphs 16, 17 and 18 of his affidavit, filed in support of the transfer application. In the transfer application he also prayed for the stay of further proceedings in the execution case on the grounds mentioned in paragraphs 16, 17 and 18 of his affidavit, filed in support of the transfer application. It is not necessary either to notice the grounds for transfer or to express any opinion on their merits in as much as it is only the matter of restoration of the transfer application which is up for consideration. 20. The above transfer application, which J is directed against Sri R.N. Pandey, the current Presiding Officer of the court of Civil Judge, Allahabad and Mahesh Chandra Saxena, Steno typist, was initially presented before Hon. K.P. Singh, J. who passed the following order : "Returned for presentation before another Hon'ble Judge to be nominated by the Hon'ble the Acting Cheif Justice. dated 8-5-1987 K.P.S." Accordingly the matter was laid before Hon'ble D.N. Jha, the then Acting Chief Justice, on 8-5-1987 itself for nomination of another Hon'ble Judge to deal with the case. Hon. R.P. Singh, J. was nominated. The transfer application, thus, came up before Hon. R.P. Singh, J. The case was admitted and notice was directed to be issued. The comments of the Presiding Officer were called for. Meanwhile further proceedings in the Execution Case No. 38 of 1984 were directed to remain stayed. Sri Sharma, was, thus, successful in halting the progress of the Execution Case once again. 21. On 14-7-1987, the decree-holder opposite-parties filed an application along with counter-affidavit praying this court to vacate the ex-parte interim order granted by it on8-5-1987. This application came up before Hon'ble K.P. Singh, J. who directed it to be listed with previous papers on Friday i.e. 17-7-1987, if possible. He also directed that in the "cause list it should be shown as "in person" for the applicant". On 17-7-1987 the matter came up before Hon. Om Prakash, J. On that date Sri Sharma was granted three weeks' time for filing rejoinder affidavit and 13-8-1987 was fixed. It appears, that Sri Sharma did not file rejoinder-affidavit within time granted by the Court. However; the matter came up before the Court on 13-8-1987 on which date the court was presided over by Hon'ble A.N. Dikshita, J. who ordered the case to be listed before some other bench. 22. It appears, that Sri Sharma did not file rejoinder-affidavit within time granted by the Court. However; the matter came up before the Court on 13-8-1987 on which date the court was presided over by Hon'ble A.N. Dikshita, J. who ordered the case to be listed before some other bench. 22. The reasons for directing the case to be listed before another bench are contained in para No. 3 of the objection of the decree- holder opposite-parties 3 to 8 dated 8-9-1987 filed in answer to the application of Sri R.L. Sharma dated 1-9-1987 praying the case to be ordered to be listed before some other bench and in paragraph No. 1 of the application of Sri Sharma dated 9-11-1987 praying for the release of the ease and for order for it being listed before some other bench. 23. Paragraph No. 3 of the aforesaid objection filed on behalf of the decree-holder opposite-parties 3 to 8 reads as under: "3. That on 13-8-1987 the above noted Transfer application was listed before Hon'ble A.N. Dixit, J. and when the Hon'ble Judge proceeded to hear the case on merits, the petitioner Ram Ji Lal Sharma, in the open court room and in the presence of the counsel for the opposite parties Mr. Ratnakar Chaudhary, Advocate, stated that since the petitioner had filed a Contempt application against Mr. Justice A.N. Dixit the Hon'ble Judge would be biased against him and he could not expect justice from his (Hon'ble Justice A.N. Dixit's) Court. The Hon'ble Judge in his magnamity ordered the case to be listed before another bench." Paragraph No. 1 of the application-of Sri Sharma dated 9-11-1987 runs as under : "1. That on 13-8-1987 Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Dikshit of the Hon. Court released the aforesaid case simply because I appeared as a counsel in a Contempt case filed against him on 18-6-1987." Consequent upon the order dated 13-8-1987 passed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Dixita, directing the case to be listed before another bench, the then Acting Chief Justice Hon'ble A. Banerji passed an order dated 20-8-1987 directing the case to be listed before me. Thus the case, came up before me on 24-8-1987. 24. On 24-8-1987 when the case was taken up the Bench Secretary reported that the cases of Sri Sharma were adjourned under the orders of Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice till 13-9-1987. Thus the case, came up before me on 24-8-1987. 24. On 24-8-1987 when the case was taken up the Bench Secretary reported that the cases of Sri Sharma were adjourned under the orders of Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice till 13-9-1987. However, Sri Ratnakar Chaudhary, learned counsel for the decree- holder opposite-parties 3 to 8, appeared and contested the report on the ground that this case, being a specially fixed case, could not have been adjourned. On the said protest the adjournment application of Sri Sharma was sent for and on it an order of Hon'ble the Acting the Chief Justice dated 11-8-1987 granting adjournment to the cases of Sri Sharma till 13-9-1987 was found to exist. But the adjournment did not cover the specially fixed cases and the instant case was a specially fixed case inasmuch as on 17-7-1987 the court had directed it to be listed on 13-8-1987. On 13-8-1987 the case had been ordered by Hon'ble A. N. Dikshita, J. to be listed before another bench but this did not change the character of the case as a specially fixed case. Apart from this, the general adjournment granted by Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice extended to the cases of the litigants wherein Sri Sharma appeared as Counsel. The privilege of adjournment under Rule 15 of Chapt. VI of the Rules of Court, 1952 is available to an Advocate and not to a litigant. Sri Sharma is a litigant in this case. 25. Realising that the adjournment of this case, on the basis of general adjournment granted to his cases, may not be possible Sri Sharma moved an application praying for adjournment till 13-9-1987. The ground for seeking adjournment as disclosed in paragraph 1 of the application dated 24-8-1987, was his illness on account of "Chronic and acute Diarrhoea". Sri Chaudhary, learned counsel for the decree-holder opposite parties Nos. 3 to 8, disputed the alleged illness of Sri Sharma. According to thim Sri Sharma came to court daily and had been seen working in other court rooms even on that date. Sri Ram Sumer Pandey, registered clerk of Sri Sharma, who had presented the adjournment application, stated that Sri Sharma had come to court and appeared also in some cases listed or otherwise in other court rooms on that date. In these circumstances it was not found appropriate to adjourn the case till 13-9-1987 as prayed for. Sri Ram Sumer Pandey, registered clerk of Sri Sharma, who had presented the adjournment application, stated that Sri Sharma had come to court and appeared also in some cases listed or otherwise in other court rooms on that date. In these circumstances it was not found appropriate to adjourn the case till 13-9-1987 as prayed for. However, in view of the fact that Sri Sharma was not present personally and was represented by his aforesaid clerk Sri Pandey, it was considered expedient in the interest of justice to adjourn the case for the day and order it to be put on26-8-1987 as the first case and it was ordered to be so. The said order was passed in presence of Ram Sumer Pandey, registered clerk of Sri Sharma. He was, therefore, directed to inform Sri Sharma about the order. 26. On 26-8-1987, Sri Sharma appeared and prayed for some time to enable him to file rejoinder-affidavit. Sri Ratnakar Chaudhary, learned counsel for the decree- holder opposite-parties Nos. 3 to 8, did not oppose the prayer. Sri Sharma and Sri Chaudhary jointly agreed for the case to be listed for orders on 28-8-1987 as a first case peremptorily and the case was directed to be so listed. 27. On 28-8-1987, Sri Sharma filed in this Court "Civil Misc. Contempt Application No. 66 of 1987 (Under Sections 16 and 12 of Contempt of Courts Act)" arraying me and Sri Ratnakar Chaudhary, Advocates, the learned counsel for the decree-holder opposite-parties Nos. 3 to 8, as opposite parties and praying the court "to initiate proper proceedings and to punish the opposite parties, under the Contempt of Courts Act." The application contained a further prayer that I "be restrained from hearing and deciding" the instant transfer application during the pendency of Contempt application. The Contempt application was founded on the allegation of disregard to the order of Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice dated 11-8-1987 arising out of the rejection of the prayer for adjournment of the instant case made by Sri Sharma on 24-8-1987. 28 The contempt application came up before Hon. B.N. Misra, J. on 28-8-1987 and when the case was called out no body appeared. However, it was directed to be put up on 3-9-1987. 29. It is pertinent to notice that the said contempt application had already been prepared on 25-8-1987. 28 The contempt application came up before Hon. B.N. Misra, J. on 28-8-1987 and when the case was called out no body appeared. However, it was directed to be put up on 3-9-1987. 29. It is pertinent to notice that the said contempt application had already been prepared on 25-8-1987. Even the affidavit filed in support of the contempt application had been sworn on 25-8-1987 at 4.00 p.m. Thus, on 26-8-1987 when Sri Sharma had appeared and prayed for the grant of time to file rejoinder-affidavit and had agreed for the case to be listed on 28-8-1987 he had already chalked out a strategy of moving the contempt application against me with the deliberate intention of embarrassing and disqualifying me from trying this case by creating unfounded ground of bias for the purpose of securing release of this case with the oblique motive of arresting the progress of the case and perpetuating the interim order dated 8-5-1987 staying further proceeding in Execution Case No. 38 of 1984. 30. This case came up before me on 1-9-1987 instead of 28-8-1987. On 1-9-1987, Sri Sharma instead of proceeding with the case moved an application with the following prayer : "It is, therefore, prayed that rejoinder- affidavit be placed on record and the aforesaid case be ordered to be listed before some other Bench after my adjournment, so as to serve the ends of justice." The decree-holder opposite-parties prayed for and were granted a weeks time to file objection against the above application of Sri Sharma dated 1-9-1987. Further, the case was directed to be listed on 9-9-1987. 31. On 3-9-1987, 31. On 3-9-1987, no body appeared in support of the contempt application of Sri Sharma and Hon'ble B.N. Misra, J. passed the following orders : "None appears in Support of the contempt application when it is called for hearing. Perused the averments made in the contempt application. The facts alleged do not make out a case for contempt and the application is dismissed with the contempt it deserves. Dt/- 3-9-1987 B.N.M." As directed this case came up before me again on 9-11-1987 (reported in AIR 1988 All 143 ) on which date the decree-holder opposite-parties filed objection to Sri Sharma's application dated 1-9-1987 praying the case to be ordered to be listed before some other bench. Dt/- 3-9-1987 B.N.M." As directed this case came up before me again on 9-11-1987 (reported in AIR 1988 All 143 ) on which date the decree-holder opposite-parties filed objection to Sri Sharma's application dated 1-9-1987 praying the case to be ordered to be listed before some other bench. On this date also Sri Sharma moved one more application dated 9-11-1987 praying this case to be listed before some other bench. 32. On the facts, in the circumstances and for the reasons stated in the order dated 9-11-1987 the aforesaid two applications of Sri Sharma dated 1-9-1987 and 9-11-1987 were rejected and he was called upon to argue out the case on mertis. No sooner the dictation of the order dated 9-11-1987 was over Sri Sharma expressed his desire to have opportunity to approach the Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice to obtain from him an order withdrawing this case from me and to engage a counsel. It was not necessary to pass any order in that regard at that moment as the case could not proceed any longer on that date for the reason that I was called upon to join a Division Court. However, the case was directed to be listed on 23-11-1987 for further orders. Obviously, Sri Sharma was, in the meantime, at liberty to take such steps as he considered appropriate. It appears, that Sri Sharma did not approach the Hon'ble the Acing Chief Justice for obtaining from him order of withdrawl of this case from me. He also did not engage any counsel as desired by him on 9-11-1987. 33. On 23-11-1987, Shri Sharma again moved an application of the same date praying for release of the case. This application was rejected the same day by means of the following order : "By means of this application the petitioner prays for the release of the instant case. The facts and the grounds do not appear to be new. Such facts and grounds were pressed into service for securing release of the case earlier also, specially in applications dated 1st Sept. and 9th Nov. 1987. Of course, there is a slight distinction, namely, this application is supported by an affidavit of the applicant himself. But basically the facts, and the grounds are the same. The earlier identical applications have already been disposed of by means of the order dated 9th Nov. 1987. and 9th Nov. 1987. Of course, there is a slight distinction, namely, this application is supported by an affidavit of the applicant himself. But basically the facts, and the grounds are the same. The earlier identical applications have already been disposed of by means of the order dated 9th Nov. 1987. This application is frivolous and is, therefore, rejected." After rejection of the application Sri Sharma moved another application of the date praying for grant of a month's time for filing stay order of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in this case. This prayer of Sri Sharma was accepted and the following order was passed : "No sooner the application for release of the case moved by him today was rejected Sri R.L. Sharma, moved this application praying for a month's time for producing an order of stay from the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. In paragraph 1 of the application Sri Sharma asserts that he wants to file an application in the Hon'ble Supreme Court for transferring the case to another Hon'ble Judge. Sri Ratnakar Chaudhary, learned counsel for the opposite parties, vehemently opposes the prayer. He contends that this application is frivolous. It is nothing but an abuse of the process of law inasmuch as the applicant wants to gain further time by obstructing the progress of the case. In the past also he (Sri Sharma) conducted himself in a manner which created a situation for transfer of this case from the file of another Hon'ble Judge and ultimately brought the matter before me. Sri Chaudhari also submits that no proceedings in Supreme Court can be maintained for transfer of the case from one Judge to another Judge. The court is not called upon to adjudicate upon these questions. It would, however, be in the interest of justice to allow Sri Sharma the time prayed for by him for bringing the proposed stay order from the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The time prayed for by Sri Sharma is allowed. List this case again on 4th January, 1988." 34. Instead of 4-1-1988 the case came up on 8-2-1988 and Sri Sharma sent an illness slip, obviously, with the object of having the case adjourned. Confronted' with this situation and on the objection of Sri Ratnakar Chaudhari, learned counsel for the decree- holder opposite-parties, following order was passed : "8-2-1988. List this case again on 4th January, 1988." 34. Instead of 4-1-1988 the case came up on 8-2-1988 and Sri Sharma sent an illness slip, obviously, with the object of having the case adjourned. Confronted' with this situation and on the objection of Sri Ratnakar Chaudhari, learned counsel for the decree- holder opposite-parties, following order was passed : "8-2-1988. Hon'ble D. S. Sinha, J. Today again an effort has been made by Sri Ramji Lal Sharma, the applicant, to have the case adjourned by sending an illness slip. Sri Ratnakar Chaudhari contends that in view of the past conduct of the petitioner today's illness slip does not appear to be genuine. The genuineness of the illness slip cannot be 'determined by the court today. Sri Chaudhari further contends that the privilege of having the case adjourned on the strength of illness slip is available only to an advocate appearing in a case as a counsel. This privilege is not available to a litigant and inasmuch as Sri Ram Ji Lal Sharma is appearing in the case as a litigant and not in the capacity as counsel for any party he is not entitled to have case adjourned merely by sending illness slip. The contention of Sri (Chaudhari is well founded and the court is in agreement with the same. However, the court feels that it is expedient in the interest of justice to adjourn the case today as Sri Sharma is not present and might be under the impression that this case would be adjourned on the strength of the illness slip in ordinary course. The hearing of the case, is therefore, adjourned today. The case shall be listed for disposal on 15th Feb.1988 peremptorily before the Court. If for any reason Sri Sharma is unable to attend the case personally he shall make suitable arrangement as the case is not likely to be adjourned on that date. The office shall apprise Sri Ram Ji Lal Sharma of this order in writing within twenty four hours." 35. If for any reason Sri Sharma is unable to attend the case personally he shall make suitable arrangement as the case is not likely to be adjourned on that date. The office shall apprise Sri Ram Ji Lal Sharma of this order in writing within twenty four hours." 35. In compliance of the above order dated 8-2-1988 Sri Sharma was apprised of the order in writing as would be evident from the following extract of the office report dated 12-2-1988 furnished by the Section Officer, Judicial Department of the Court : "OFFICE REPORT In compliance with the Court's order dated 8-2-1988 in Transfer Application No. 66 of, 1987 Sri, Ramji Lal Sharma, applicant has been appraised of the Court's order, dated 8-2-1988 in writing on 9-2-1988 i.e. within 24 hours. The office copy of the notice dated 9-2-1988 bearing signature R.L. Sharma Advocate, in token of receipt of the aforesaid Notice on 9-2-1988, is placed below, at flag 'A' for kind perusal........." 36. On 15-2-1988 neither Sri Sharma nor any body on his behalf appeared to press the transfer application. It was, therefore, dismissed for want of prosecution by means of the following order : "Hon'ble. D.S. Sinha, J. List has been revised. Nobody appears to press the transfer application. It is, therefore, dismissed for want of prosecution. The interim order dated 8-5-1987 is discharged. As prayed for by the learned counsel for the opposite party let a certified copy of this order be issued to him on payment of usual charges today. 15-2-1988 D. S.S." 37. On 11-3-1988 Sri Sharma moved an application of the date praying the court to recall or set aside the order dated 15-2-1988 dismissing his transfer application for want of prosecution without serving any copy of the application on the learned counsel for the decree-holder opposite parties. In the application further prayer for stay of proceedings in Execution Case No. 38 of 1984, Rajendra Kumar and others v. R.L. Sharma, pending disposal of the application, was made. The application came up before Hon. K.P. Singh, J. who was pleased to dispose it of partly in the following manner: "List this application along with connected papers before appropriate bench at an early date. In the meantime further proceedings in Execution Case No. 38 of 1984, Rajendra Kumar and others v. R.L. Sharma, pending in the court of Civil Judge, Allahabad shall remain stayed. In the meantime further proceedings in Execution Case No. 38 of 1984, Rajendra Kumar and others v. R.L. Sharma, pending in the court of Civil Judge, Allahabad shall remain stayed. Dt/- 11-3-1988 K.P.S." Thus the second prayer of Sri Sharma made in his application dated 11-3-1988 with regard to stay of further proceedings in Execution Case No. 38 of 1984 (Rajendra Kumar and others v. R.L. Sharma) pending in the court of Civil Judge, Allahabad during the pendency of the application, stood disposed of and Sri Sharma once again succeeded in thwarting the execution of the ejectment decree against him. 38. It would be apt to recall that on 8-5-1987 Hon'ble K.P. Singh, J. had returned the transfer application No. 66 of 1987 for presentation before another Hon'ble Judge to be nominated by the then Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice, that it was tied up with me by the order of the then Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice dated 20-8-1987, that it was dismissed by me for want of prosecution on 15-2-1988, and that the application dated 11-3-1988 seeks setting aside of the order dated 15-2-1988 and restoration of the said transfer application. Sri Sharma should have brought these facts to the notice of Hon'ble K.P. Singh, J. As an Advocate and officer of Court he was obliged to do so. 39. In this context it would be relevant to notice Rules 13, 14 and 15 of the Chapter V of the Rules of Court, 1952, which read as under : "13. No application to the same effect or with the same object as a previous application upon which a Bench has passed any order other than an order of reference to another Judge or Judges, shall, except by way of appeal, ordinarily be heard by any other Bench. The application when presented by or on behalf of the person by whom or on whose behalf such previous application was made shall give the necessary particulars of such previous application, the nature and the date of the order passed thereon and the name or names of the Judge or Judges by whom such order was passed. The application when presented by or on behalf of the person by whom or on whose behalf such previous application was made shall give the necessary particulars of such previous application, the nature and the date of the order passed thereon and the name or names of the Judge or Judges by whom such order was passed. 14.(1) A case partly heard by a Bench shall ordinarily be laid before the same Bench for disposal A case in which a Bench has merely directed notice to issue to the opposite party or passed an ex-parte order shall not be deemed to be a case partly heard by such Bench. (2) When a criminal revision has been admitted on the question of severity of sentence only, it shall ordinarily be heard by the Bench admitting it. 15. Any application in case which may under the next preceding Rule be heard by a particular Bench shall ordinarily be heard by such Bench." From a perusal of the aforesaid rules, which are based on the salutary principle of judicial propriety and decorum, it is evident that where a case is partly heard by or tied up with a particular bench it ought to be laid before the.same bench for disposal It is further clear that not only the part-heard or tied up case but all applications therein are to be laid for disposal before the bench with which the case is tied up or which has heard the case in part. 40. As directed by Hon. K.P. Singh, J. the application of Sri Sharma dated 11-3-1988 came up before me on 25-3-1988 for disposal of that part of the application which pertains to the prayer for recalling or setting aside the order dated 15-2-1988. Sri Sharma appeared . and made oral prayer for adjourning the case on the ground that he had seen the cause list and marked the case "just few minutes before the case was taken up". Considering the shallowness of the ground his prayer for adjournment was not conceded. Then he orally prayed for sending the application to some other Hon'ble Judge for disposal. This prayer too was not granted inasmuch as the prayer was, obviously, inspired with the predominant purpose and motive of having the interim order dated 11-3-1988, staying the execution of the decree of ejectment against him perpetuated as long as possible. Then he orally prayed for sending the application to some other Hon'ble Judge for disposal. This prayer too was not granted inasmuch as the prayer was, obviously, inspired with the predominant purpose and motive of having the interim order dated 11-3-1988, staying the execution of the decree of ejectment against him perpetuated as long as possible. After the rejection of his aforesaid two oral prayers Sri Sharma was invited to argue out tie application on merits. But Sri Sharma, with a contemptuous gesture towards court, closed his arguments. In the meantime I was called upon to join a Division Court and, as such, orders on the application were reserved. 41. On 8-4-1988 Sri Sharma moved an application again praying that the application dated 11-3-1988 may be sent to some other Hon'ble Judge for hearing and disposal This application was moved before Hon'ble V. K. Mehrotra, J.'before whom Sri Sharma it appears, prayed for the return of the application in original for presentation before me. Hon'ble V.K. Mehrotra, J. passed order in terms of the aforesaid prayer. Then it was presented before me in Chamber. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, detailed herein before, and the fact that identical prayer made by Sri Sharma orally has already been rejected on 25-3-1988 it would not be in the interest of justice to allow the said application dated 8-4-1988. 42. Bearing in mind the backdrop of the aforementioned antecedent events I proceed to depose of that part of the application dated 11-3-1988 which pertains to the prayer of Sri Sharma for setting aside the order dated 15-2-1988 dismissing his transfer application No. 66 of 1987 for want of prosecution. The application of Sri Sharma, in itself, does not contain any fact or circumstance justifying his absence and failure to press his transfer application on 15-2-1988. However, the application is supported by an affidavit sworn by Sri Sharma. The application of Sri Sharma, in itself, does not contain any fact or circumstance justifying his absence and failure to press his transfer application on 15-2-1988. However, the application is supported by an affidavit sworn by Sri Sharma. In this affidavit it is asserted that Sri Sharma "due to his extreme illness filed an adjournment application which was allowed by Hon'ble the Chief Justice for a period of about one month, i.e. from 25-1-1988 to 26-2-1988 on the ground of illness." It is further stated in the affidavit that Sri Sharma "could not engage any counsel or brief him because of his extreme illness." Further statement in the affidavit is that ultimately Sri Sharma "had to undergo for his treatment in Chiranjeev Nursing Home since 14-2-1988 and Dr. K.C. Srivastava, M.B.B.S., of the aforesaid Nursing Home issued a Medical certificate to this effect showing the extreme illness of Sri Sharma "who had been suffering from chronic amoebic colitis, and who was advised complete rest for a period of at least six weeks......... and accordingly" Sri Sharma "was unable to attend personally or through any other counsel and was unable to brief any counsel on the merits of the case because of his extreme illness". However, according to the statement made in the affidavit Sri Sharma "had to send an adjournment application dated 15-2-1988 supported with "his affidavit" along with the original Medical certificate dated 14-2-1988" through Sri R.P. Pandey, Advocate and the clerk Phool Chandra. 43. On one hand Sri Sharma pleads that he was extremely ill and on account of his illness he could neither engage any counsel nor brief him. On the other hand he asserts that he sent adjournment application dated 15-2-1988 supported with his affidavit along with Medical certificate dated 14-2-1988 through Sri R.P. Pandey, Advocate and Phool Chandra, clerk. These two different stands are incompatible. It is striking that as per statement made in paragraph 3 of the affidavit Sri Sharma had got his cases adjourned for a period of one month i.e. from 25-1-1988 to 26-2-1988 on the ground of his alleged illness owing to "chronic Amoebic Colitis" which means that he was ill from before 25-1-1988 but he chose to undertake treatment in "Chiranjeev Nursing Home" only from 14-2-1988 i.e. a day before his transfer application was to be taken up for disposal. Further, the ailment of Sri Sharma was, according to his own showing, Chronic and not acute requiring sudden movement to a Nursing Home. The illness set up by Sri Sharma is manifestly purposive and fake. It was not on account of any illness that Sri Sharma failed to appear in the Court on 15-2-1988 and press his transfer application but the failure was, as it appears from the facts and circumstances, deliberate and well calculated. The pleadings of Sri Sharma to the effect that Sri R.P. Pandey, Advocate and Phool Chandra clerk filed duly stamped adjournment application before the Reader on 15-2-1988, that the Reader asked Sri Ratnakar Chaudhari, counsel for the opposite parties, to accept notice and he refused to receive copy, that thereafter the Reader presented adjournment application before the court and that the said application was returned after perusal are absolutely false and frivolous. Nothing of the kind happened. Neither Sri R.P. Pandey, Advocate and Phool Chandra, clerk appeared nor they filed any application for adjournment as alleged. 44. The original application dated 15-2-1988, affidavit in support thereof and the medical certificate, alleged to. have been filed and returned, have been filed along with the application dated 11-3-1988. A perusal of the said affidavit reveals that Sri Sharma had appeared before the Oath Commissioner on 15-2-1988 at 9.30 a.m. for swearing the affidavit. If he could appear before the Oath Commissioner at 9.30 am. he could certainly have appeared in the court at 10.00 a. m. barely half an hour after his appearance before the Oath Commissioner. The Medical certificate is not worthy of any credence. The certificate neither discloses the name of the doctor issuing the certificate nor does it give his Registration number. The name of the Medical Practitioner issuing the certificate and his registration number are minimum ingredients to testify the genuineness of a medical certificate. The certificate, is on the face of it, fake and no reliance can be placed on it. 45. Considering the overall picture of the situation it is abundantly evident that the application dated 11-3-1988 is vexatious and it cannot be said that Sri Sharma has made out any case for setting aside or recalling the order dated 15-2-1988 dismissing his transfer, application for want of prosecution. 46. 45. Considering the overall picture of the situation it is abundantly evident that the application dated 11-3-1988 is vexatious and it cannot be said that Sri Sharma has made out any case for setting aside or recalling the order dated 15-2-1988 dismissing his transfer, application for want of prosecution. 46. Behind the cover and cloak of every move of Sri Sharma there has been and there is sinister motive and foul design not to allow the decree for his ejectment to be executed, and he has, hitherto, succeeded in his mission. The tactics adopted by Sri Sharma, which have resulted in grossest abuse of the process of the court and are destructive of judicial system itself, cannot be allowed to debase the process of the court any further. 47. For what has been stated above the application of Sri Sharma dated 11-3-1988 fails and is hereby dismissed with, compensatory costs which are quantified at s. 2000/- only. He is directed to pay to ,the decree-holder opposite-parties the said sum of Rs. 2000/- together with a sum of Rs. 380/- by way of costs imposed upon him by the Civil Judge, Allahabad, on various dates while granting him adjournment, within a period of three weeks from today. 48. As a consequence of the dismissal of he application dated 11-3-1988 the interim order dated 11-3-1988, staying further proceeding in Execution Case No. 38 of 1984, Rajendra Kumar and others v. R.L. Sharma, pending in the Court of Civil Judge, Allahabad, stands discharged. 49. Further the Civil Judge, Allahabad, is directed to proceed with the Execution Case No. 38 of 1984, Rajendra Kumar and others Ram Ji Lal Sharma, without any further delay and ensure that the decree under execution, is executed within a reasonable period but in no case later than four months from today.