This special appeal is directed against the order dated 31-7-1995 passed by the learned Single Judge refusing to recall the order dated 1-12-1994 passed in writ petition No. 38665 of 1994. 2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the first respondent Virendra Bahadur Singh who is an employees of the appellants Co-operative Bank filed writ petition No. 1222 of 1994 in the High Court of Judicature, Lucknow Bench for quashing the orders dated 21-10-1994 and. 25-10-1994 passed by the appellant Bank. While the writ petition was pending on the file of Lucknow Bench, he filed the present writ petition No. 38665 of 1994 seeking the very same relief which is sought for in the writ petition filed before the Lucknow Bench. 3. Obviously, when the order dated 1-12-1994 was passed by the learned Judge in Writ Petition No. 38665 of 1994 the fact that the peti tioner therein, who is respondent No. 1 herein, had already filed writ petition No. 1222 of 1994 before the Lucknow Bench and the same was pending, it was not within the knowledge of the Court. When the appellant herein, filed an application No. 37992 of 1994 in writ petition No. 38665 of 1994 bringing the aforesaid relevant fact to the notice of the Court, the learned single Judge refused to recall his order dated 1-12-1994. 4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the very same counsel, who filed writ petition No. 1222 of 1994 before the Lucknow Bench, has filed the writ petition No. 38665 of 1994 before this Court concealing the fact of filing the writ petition before the Lucknow Bench and in the circumstances writ petition No, 386665 of 1994 was liable to be dismissed in limine as it was not maintainable. 5. We see force in the contention of the learned counsel. If the same counsel has filed writ petition No. 1222 of 1994 before the Lucknow Bench and the present writ petition before this Court and if he has not mentioned the fact that the writ petition already filed before the Lucknow Bench was pending, the conduct of the learned counsel is reprehensible. Successive writ petitions seeking the same relief in respect of the same cause of action cannot be filed by the same party. 6. Successive writ petitions seeking the same relief in respect of the same cause of action cannot be filed by the same party. 6. By the order dated 1-12-1994 passed in writ petition No. 38665 of 1994, the learned Judge directed the Registrar of the Cooperative Societies to consider the representation of first respondent herein. It is stated that the representation has already been considered and the same has been rejected. 7. In the circumstances, no further order need be passed in this Special Appeal. 8. The Special Appeal is, accordingly, disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Appeal disposed of. .