Honble SHETHNA, J.–During the midst of hearing of this matter it is brought to my notice that Ex.1 dated 8.1.98 challenged by the petitioner is not the correct document which he is challenging. In the impugned notice at Ex.1, it is clearly sta- ted that the copy of the notice and proposed no-confidence motion is sent. The reply affidavit has been filed in this petition and in para 2 of the reply, it has been stated that the petitioner has not approached this Hon`ble Court with clean hands and the main emphasis of the petitioner in the petition that she was not supplied the copy of the proposed notice of no-confidence, whereas the same was served upon her on 8.1.98. It is also stated that the disputed question of facts are involved in this matter , therefore, this Court should dismiss this petition only on these preliminary objections. (2). However, according to learned counsel Mr. Bhoot for the petitioner that due to bonafide mistake some other document was annexed as Ex.1 by him. Typed copy of Ex.1 is a totally different document altogether which is sought to be challenged by the petitioner in this petition. (3). Under the circumstances, the preliminary objections raised by the other side has to be accepted and the petition is required to be dismissed on this ground alone that typed copy of correct document was never challenged by the petitioner. (4). Before parting, I may point out that on earlier occasion when the matter was adjourned by me on 12.7.99, learned counsel Mr. Bhoot stated that there is no interim relief in the petition. However, today, it was pointed out by learned counsel Mr. Bishnoi for the respondents that on stay petition, this Court on 26.3.98 while issusing notice, stayed the by-election which was proposed to be held on 27.3.1998 for the election of the Pradhan to Panchayat Samiti, Pipalkhunt. Because of the said interim order, the election for the post of Pradhan could not be held so far. Mr. Bhoot, however, express his regrets as he was under the impression that no interim relief against her disqualification or unsitting was obtained. Be that as it may, Mr. Bhoot is a fairly senior advocate and it is expected from senior advocates that in- correct or false statements should not be made even inadvertently. Mr. Mr. Bhoot, however, express his regrets as he was under the impression that no interim relief against her disqualification or unsitting was obtained. Be that as it may, Mr. Bhoot is a fairly senior advocate and it is expected from senior advocates that in- correct or false statements should not be made even inadvertently. Mr. Bhoot assures this Court that such mistake will not be repeated in future. (5). This is a first lapse, therefore, the apology tendered by Mr. Bhoot is accepted. (6). However, it is to be emphasised upon one and all including seniors and juniors that before making any statement before the Court one must think twice and should not make any false or incorrect statement advertently or inadvertently. (7). In view of the above, this petition is dismissed and the stay granted earlier on stay petition stands vacated forthwith. The respondents shall now proceed with the holding of the elections for the post of Pradhan to Panchayat Samiti, Pipalkhunt.