ORDER Ravi S. Dhavan, J. - The petitioner is owner and landlord of the premises No. 44/83 Chowk (Hanman Gali) Allahabad. He is aggrieved by the order passed by the District Judge, Allahabad dated 27-11-1987 (Annexure 5 to the Writ Petition) whereby upon an injunction denied to the respondents protecting their eviction by the trial court, has been granted to stall the decree, by the learned District Judge, aforesaid. The manner in which the appeal was presented to the District Judge, Allahabad is an aspect which needs to be taken note of as the original record is before this court. Upon it, the Court shall comment subsequently. 2. But, it would not be appropriate, regard being had to the facts and circumstances of this case not to notice the decision given in two writ petitions filed by the contesting respondents upon judgments passed upon them by the High Court. The first petition is No. 17268 of 1986 (reported AIR 1988 All 52 ) Smt. Sona Devi v. District Judge and. the second writ petition is 2400 of 1987 (reported in 1988 All LJ 552), Smt. Sona Devi v. Prescribed Authority. The judgments in both were delivered by Honble R.P. Singh, J. 3. In Writ Petition No. 17268 of 1968 the same respondents were seeking protection from dispossession in pursuance of the decree for eviction which had been passed by the Judge, Small Cause Court, Allahabad as their status was such that they had not been made parties to the suit decree. This court held in effect that the respondents being third parties could not deprive the decree holder of possession from the premises by repeated and spurious claims in reference to the suit which was pending. This court in judgment, of Nov. 12, 1987, reported in 1988 UPREC 24, ( AIR 1988 All 52 at p. 55), observed "In the present case, we find that a regular suit No. 739 of 1986 was already filed by the petitioners for a declaration of their right and moved an injunction application against respondent No. 3 in the Court of Munsif, West, Allahabad wherein they prayed for a temporary injunction from evicting them in execution of the decree. Hence it is only after a very strong prima facie case is made out, that the petitioners may obtain an injunction and that the petitioners are already pursuing their remedy before the civil court. Hence it is only after a very strong prima facie case is made out, that the petitioners may obtain an injunction and that the petitioners are already pursuing their remedy before the civil court. Hence also, no interference is called for with the impugned orders in this extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226. of the constitution." 4. In Writ Petition No. 2400 of 1987 in reference to release of the accommodation sought by the landlord and owner under Section 21(l)(a) of U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 the respondents moved an application, in effect, objecting to the grant or release of the accommodation on the plea that they were sub tenants, and before the landlord could seek or procure release they ought to have been impleaded as parties and as the landlord had not impleaded them they ought to be heard. The Prescribed Authority on an application seeking impleadment in the release sought by the landlord under Section; 21(1)(a), aforesaid, heard the respondents. The prescribed Authority maintained his order for release and gave reasons why he did not consider it necessary or appropriate i to implead the respondents on the ground, if that they had, in effect, no locus standi or status to be impleaded as they did not make out a prima facie case on merits and that they could not interfere with the proceedings pending before the Prescribed Authority. The order of the Prescribed Authority declining permission to be impleaded and consequently not granting an order preventing eviction of 'I the petitioners gave rise to the aforesaid writ petition No. 2400 of 1987. The decision is reported in 1988 U.P. R.C,C.18 :(1988 All LJ, 552). 5. This petition was also decided, by Hon'ble R.D. Singh, J. on 12 November, 19817. On this subsequent petition the High Court held that the petitioner had not made out any prima facie case togive the status of interfering with the proceedings under S. 21(1)(a) before the Prescribed Authority, as they had not been able to show, on record, that they were tenants or sub tenants or licencees so that they could have protection under S. 14 of the Act aforesaid they could not be conferred the status of tenants and prima facie they were not such persons whose eviction could be warded off. The High Court, therefore, upheld the order of the Prescribed Authority. 6. The High Court, therefore, upheld the order of the Prescribed Authority. 6. The present writ petition has reference to the suit which was filed by the petitioner upon which they prayed for an injunction, in effect, preventing their eviction from the said premises. The Munsif, East, Allahabad being conscious of the two judgments delivered by this court and regard being had to the fact that the respondents in reference to the judgments delivered had not made out a prima facie case found that neither a prima facie case was in their favour nor the balance of convenance and denied the injunction sought by his order dated 25 Nov. 1987. One aspect of the reference needs to be noticed that the injunction which was denied by the learned Munsif aforesaid is virtually 13 days after this court had delivered its two judgments in the aforesaid writ petitions. The learned Munsif, has given detailed reasons why he was satisfied that the respondents were such persons who could not receive an injunction. 7. Against the order of the learned Munsif, East, Allahabad dated 25 Nov. 1987 the respondents preferred a Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 363 of 1987 before the District Judge, Allahabad. The appeal was presented on 27 Nov. 1988 without a certified copy of the judgment of the trial court and without notice to the owners, that is the petitioner; this is a matter of record. The learned District Judge, Allahabad on presentation of the appeal passed the following order Z Heard. Admit and register. Issue notice for 27-1-1988 for hearing. Summon, the record. Meanwhile let status quo be maintained by the parties." 8. Thus from the order itself it is discernible that the record of the trial court, the certified copies and order and the formal order which was sought to be impugned in appeal were not before the learned District Judge. 9. The grant of status quo, in effect, implies that without setting any reason on record the order of injunction denied by the trial court was rendered redundant and further, two judgments delivered by this court dated Nov. 9. The grant of status quo, in effect, implies that without setting any reason on record the order of injunction denied by the trial court was rendered redundant and further, two judgments delivered by this court dated Nov. 12, 1987, otherwise, noticed by the trial court upon which the High Court held (1) the respondents were third parties to the decree and could not receive protection and (2) did not have any statuts under U.P" Act No. XIII of 1972 so as to be granted an order preventing their eviction had been set at naught. 10. In these circumstances, this court had stayed the order of the learned District Judge, as after the two judgments of the court the status of the petitioners was that of third parties and strangers and certainly not of tenants. The two judgments of this court, it is stated have not been challenged before the Supreme Court. The judgments have attained finality. 11. The original record of suit No. 739 of 1986 and the consequential Miscellaneous 1 Appeal No. 397 of 1987 had been sent for, and is before this Court. 12. One of the aspects the record need to be noticed. This first is that the appeal was presented without certified copy. The certified I copy of the order of the learned Munsif East along with the normal order was filed on 28 Nov. 1987, after the order of 27 Nov. 1988 passed by the learned District Judge for maintaining status quo. On 27 Nov. 1987 when the appeal was presented before the learned District Judge a Misc. Application No. 6 Ga had also been filed by the respondents. The application dated Nov. 1987 was accompanied by an affidavit. The affidavit has been sworn at about 11.12 a.m. The affidavit contained two annexures. A photo copy of the judgment of the trial court is appended as Annexure 2 to this affidavit, it is not a certified copy. The I script of the judgment is typed. The judgment is on 12 pages. The original is numbered 52 A. the script of the transcribed judgment submitted with the affidavit tallies page by page, line by line, including corrections made with the typewriter, with the original. A perusal of the photo copy of the judgment filed with an affidavit contains the same corrections of the typewriter as the original judgment. The original is numbered 52 A. the script of the transcribed judgment submitted with the affidavit tallies page by page, line by line, including corrections made with the typewriter, with the original. A perusal of the photo copy of the judgment filed with an affidavit contains the same corrections of the typewriter as the original judgment. The typewriter correction made on page 1 in the third and tenth line, the correction made on page 4 in the second, fourteenth, twentieth and at the bottom line, the correction made on page 5 at the bottom of the page, the correction made on page 9 in the first, and second line, the correction made on page 10 in the last line, the correction made on page 11 in the fourth line and the correction made on page 12 in the twelfth line will be found on the photo copy of the judgment which was presented with an affidavit, Further corrections which may have been made by the trial judge while correcting the judgment are not to be found on the photo copy of the judgment submitted with the affidavit 7 Ga. The photo copy of the judgment tallies with the typed script of. the original judgment. This gives rise to questions: (1) How did the respondents receive a copy of this judgment when the original had yet to receive the hand corrections of the trial judge and (2) how was the photo copy delivered to the respondents when the original had yet to be signed. The trial judge's corrections are not in the photo copy. 13. Then the affidavit is numbered as 7 Ga, the first annexure referred to in para 3 is, I,8 Ga. The second annexure referred to in para 11, has not been numbered. Why ? and the index does mention it. The next document is the vakalatnama containing the number 6 Ga. Why was the numbering on annexure 2' the photo copy of the judgment in twelve ,pages, left out. This is the record After the trial court's judgment and before the appellate court. 14. As a writ of certiorari issued upon a motion by this court, the court cannot help but notice these facts. Why was the numbering on annexure 2' the photo copy of the judgment in twelve ,pages, left out. This is the record After the trial court's judgment and before the appellate court. 14. As a writ of certiorari issued upon a motion by this court, the court cannot help but notice these facts. There is meant to be a measure of sanctity and confidentiality in the judgment which is delivered but it appears to this court, regard being had to the facts that what was presented as a photo copy of the judgment the typed corrections of which tally with every line on the relevant page was inthe hands of the respondents as a copy before the Judge had signed the judgment. The certified copy presented 24 hours later was the replica of the typed original, as it was the carbon copy. This implies that upon the text of the judgment having been typed, the text was available to the respondents as a carbon copy. A carbon copy also became the certified. The carbon copy which was certified and the photo copy appended to the affidavit as Annexure 2 are the facsimile of the original. The typed corrections are to be found in the photo copy as well as the carbon copy which was certified and these tuped corrections tally with the original judgment. But, the court's corrections are in the certified copy and not on the photo copy. 15. In the face of these circumstances and on merits of the matter, and regard being had to the two judgments of the High Court of 12 Nov., 1987 this court does not consider it appropriate that the respondents are such persons who are entitled to sympathy and discretion from the High Court under Article 226 of the constitution. The injunction has been rightly denied by the Munsif East, Allahabad. 16. The petition is allowed with costs. 17. This court directs the Registrar to put his signature and seal on each page of the unnumbered annexure 2' to the affidavit (7ga) and number it 8Ga/A/1 till the numbering on each page of this annexure 2' is complete. Let the index of the record also incorporate the description of the said annexure 2' and the number given to it. Thereafter, let this record be placed before the Chief Justice and the administrative Judge for an appropriate inquiry.