D. K. SETH, J. In writ petition No. 22426 of 1996, the petitioner had chal lenged the order dated 2nd July, 1991 reverting the petitioner to the post of Lekhpal from the post of Naib Tehsildar and had obtained an ad interim order of stay of operation of the said order until an appropriate order of rerversion of the petitioner is passed by a competent authority for valid reasons. 2. In Writ Petition No. 14314 of 1991, he had claimed that he was holding a substantive post of Patwari since absorbed in the cadre of Lekhpal. On such basis, he had claimed that he is eligible to retire on attainment of 60 years. Such statement is made in paragraphs 8 and 10 respectively of the Writ Petition No. 14314 of 1991, whereas, in Writ Petition No. 22426 of 1991, in paragraph 5, he claimed that he was promoted as Naib-Tehsildar and, therefore, cannot be reverted back. Thus, it appears that he is trying to make out two inconsistent cases in the two different writ petitions as mentioned above. 3. Be that as it may, by reason of the impugned order dated 13th August, 1991 passed in Writ Petition No. 22426 of 1991 challenging the reversion, the said writ petition virtually stand allowed. In the meantime, the petitioner who has attained 58 years of age on 30th April, 1991, cannot be expected to coiitmue beyond 30th April, 1993 even if his age of retirement is 60 years. Therefore, this writ petition has become infructuous and is, accordingly dismissed. 4. On the other hand, it may be noted in case the petitioner sticks to his promo tion and succeeds in challenging the rever sion, in that event, he cannot continue beyond 58 years since the age of retire ment of a Naib-Tehsildar is 58 years. The petitioner had taken advantage of the in terim order granted on 7th. May, 1991 in Writ Petition No. 14314 of 1991, wherein he had claimed that he holds the post of a Patwari since absorbed in the post of Lekhpal and as such, is entitled to con tinue till 60 years of age. Unless he is holding the post of Lekhpal, he cannot claim to continue till 60 years. Therefore, the interim order in Writ Petition No. 22426 of 1991 was obtained by misleading this Court and in a sheer abuse of process of Court. Unless he is holding the post of Lekhpal, he cannot claim to continue till 60 years. Therefore, the interim order in Writ Petition No. 22426 of 1991 was obtained by misleading this Court and in a sheer abuse of process of Court. He cannot take advantage of both ends at the same time. In as much as on the one hand he is claiming that he is holding the substantive post of Patwari absorbed in Lekhpal and as such, is en titled to continue till 60 years and at the same time he cannot continue in the post of Naib- Tehsildar and resist reversion to the post of Lekhpal and continue beyond 58 years of age. 5. In Writ Petition No. 14314 of 1991, the petitioner had pointed out in para graph 10 that he was working as Naib-Teh sildar in officiating capacity. This fact has not been disclosed in Writ Petition No. 22426 of 1991. Thus, he has obtained an interim order in Writ Petition No. 22426 of 1991 by suppression of material facts as well as by making incorrect and misleading statement, which he had reason to believe to be incorrect and had sought to use the same in Court affirming the same as cor rect through affidavit. 6. Since the petitioner had come up with unclean hands, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed and any advantage that he might have taken out of the interim order, should be recovered from him. In case the petitioner had received salary in the post of Naib-Tehsildar after 13th August, 1991, in that the same should be recovered from the petitioner as arrear of land revenue or may be adjusted from the retrial benefits, if payable to him together with interest at the rate of 18% per annum simple from the respective date of pay ment of such amount to the petitioner till the date of recovery. 7. Writ Petition No. 14314 of 1991 was disposed of by an order dated 1st September, 1998. On 16th September, 1998 another order was passed in Writ Petition No. 13965 of 1991. 7. Writ Petition No. 14314 of 1991 was disposed of by an order dated 1st September, 1998. On 16th September, 1998 another order was passed in Writ Petition No. 13965 of 1991. In the order dated 16th September, 1998 passed in Writ Petition No. 13965 of 1991 it was observed that the petitioner had moved three writ petitions but when Writ Petition No. 14314 of 1991 was disposed of, learned counsel for the petitioner did not disclose that two other writ petitions were also pending. The Writ Petition No. 14314 of 1991 was disposed of without reference to the other two writ petitions. Therefore, the matter was directed to be listed on 7th October, 1998, on which date the learned counsel for the petitioner was directed to ensure presence of the petitioner in Court in person. On 7th October, 1998, an adjournment was obtained by the counsel for the petitioner Mr. Dhananjay Prasad that he had sent a registered letter to his client but the ac knowledgment has not come back and, therefore, he had sought for further time when the matter was directed to be listed on 25th November, 1998 by the order dated 7th October, 1998. On 14th Septem ber, 1998 and 16th September, 1998, the matters were adjourned and Mr. B. K. Rai, learned brief holder for the State was directed to communicate the date fixed in the said two orders to Mr. Dhananjay Prasad. Today when the matter is listed. Mr. Dhananjay has sent an illness slip. It seems that every time when the matter is listed, it is being adjourned either on the prayer of Mr. Dhananjay Prasad or in his absence. 8. In the circumstances, I have perused the records and have taken up the matter. 9. It appears that Writ Petition No. 13965 of 1991 was presented on 30th April, 1991. In the said writ petition, the petitioner was represented by Mr. Dhananjay Prasad. By an order dated 30the April, 1991 passed in Writ Petition No. 13965 of 1991, the matter was directed to be put up on 2nd May, 1991. On 2nd May, 1991, the matter was directed to be listed in ordinary course for admission with liberty to the petitioner to file the termination order in the meantime. 10. Dhananjay Prasad. By an order dated 30the April, 1991 passed in Writ Petition No. 13965 of 1991, the matter was directed to be put up on 2nd May, 1991. On 2nd May, 1991, the matter was directed to be listed in ordinary course for admission with liberty to the petitioner to file the termination order in the meantime. 10. It appears that the petitioner having been unsuccessful in obtaining an interim order, had filed a Writ Petition No. 14314 of 1991 on the same cause of action for the identical relief on 4th May, 1991 again being represented by Mr. Dhananjay Prasad and obtained and interim order on 7th May, 1991. In Writ Petition No. 13965 of 1991, in paragraph 10, the petitioner had contended that the opposite parties were contemplating to retire the petitioner on 30th April, 1991 all of a sudden without giving him any notice of retirement and the petitioner ap prehended that the opposite parties would retire him on 30th April, 1991, whereas, in Writ Petition No. 14314 of 1991, in para graph 7, the petitioner had stated that the Tehsildar had illegally issued a notice for theretirement of the petitioner at the age of 58 years, a copy whereof has been An nexed as Annexure 2 to the writ petition, which is dated 27th April, 1991. Thus, these two statements in two writ petitions, appear to be contradictory. 11. A second writ petition for the same relief on the same cause of action is not maintainable in view of Rule 7, Chapter XXII of the High Court Rules. There fore, the Writ Petition No. 14314 of 1991 would not be maintainable. Moreover, the fact that Writ Petition No. 13965 of 1991 was moved, has been completely suppressed in Writ Petition No. 14314 of 1991 though affirmed within a span of 14 days, namely, the Writ Petition No. 13965 of 1991 was affirmed on 19th April, 1991 whereas Writ Petition No. 14314 if 1991 was affirmed on 3rd May, 1991. The petitioner was represented in both the writ petitions by Mr. Dhananjay Prasad, learned counsel. 12. The petitioner was represented in both the writ petitions by Mr. Dhananjay Prasad, learned counsel. 12. Thus, it appears that the petitioner in sheer abuse of process of law had preferred a second writ petition without disclosing the fact of pendency of the earlier writ petition in respect of the same self cause of action seeking the same relief and thereby, obtained an interim order misleading this Court. Learned counsel Mr. Dhananjay Prasad appears to have aided and abated the petitioner in the matter in the abuse of the process of the Court and, thus, prima facie, it seems that he had failed in the discharge of his duly as an Advocate of this Court in aiding and abatling the litigant in abusing the process of Court. Even when he obtained an order in Writ Petition No. 13965 of 1991 in favour of the petitioner on 1st September, 1991, he did not disclose the fact of pen dency of the earlier writ petition, which could be detected per chance at a sub sequent stage when the Writ Petition No. 13965 of 1991 had come up only because of the vigilence of the learned Standing Counsel. 13. Since the interim order was ob tained on a non-maintainable writ peti tion, by misleading this Court in sheer abuse of process, no benefit could be availed of the said interim order by the petitioner. Therefore, even if the petitioner had worked beyond 30th April, 1991 pursuant to the interim order dated 7th May, 1991, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, in view of the observation made above, the petitioners should not be allowed to reap the benefit of the said interim order. He cannot be allowed to play with the Court and run away with the benefit of an order clandes tinely obtained. Therefore, whatever pay ment that might have been made to the petitioner after 30th April, 1991, that would be recovered from the petitioner as arreas of land revenue or otherwise or by way of adjustment of retiral benefits together with interest at the rate of 18% per annum simple from the date as and when such payments were made to the petitioner till the date of such recovery. The order dated 1st May, 1998 having been obtained by suppression of fact by mis leading this Court, the said order is, hereby, recalled. The order dated 1st May, 1998 having been obtained by suppression of fact by mis leading this Court, the said order is, hereby, recalled. Writ Petition No. 14314 of 1991 is dismissed as not maintainable in view of Rule 7, Chapter XXII of the Al lahabad High Court Rules as observed earlier as well as on account of the reason that the petitioner had come up with un clean hands and also on account of the stand taken by him in Writ Petition No. 22426 of 1991, wherein he had said that he was promoted to the post of Naib-Tehsil- dar, wherein the age of retirement as 58 years. The Writ Petition No. 14314 of 1991 is, therefore, dismissed with the above ob servation. 14. Writ Petition No. 13965 of 1991 is also dismissed on account of the conduct of the petitioner as observed earlier, who appears to have taken undue advantage of the process of the Court and appears to have approached this Court with unclean hands and had deliberately abused the process of Court having suppressed material facts and making misleading statements. 15. In such circumstances, the Registrar is directed to issue notice to Mr. Dhananjay Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as on the petitioner re quiring them to appear in Court on 24th March, 1999 to show cause as to why ap propriate proceeding should not be drawn up against the petitioner for initiating proceedings under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as well as the learned counsel to show cause why his case should not be referred to the Bar Council for a conduct not befitting a counsel of this Court. 16. Let this matter be listed for fur ther orders on 24th March, 1999 in the supplementary cause list. A copy of this order be placed before the Registrar within one week for carrying out the direc tions given in this order. Petition dismissed. .