JUDGMENT : Anil Kumar, J. – Heard Sri Manish Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri B. Q. Siddiqui, learned counsel appearing on behalf of O.P. No. 2? and Sri Alok Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel appearing on behalf of O.P. Nos. 3 and 4. 2. With the consent of the counsel for the parties, the writ petition is heard finally at the admission stage. 3. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 04.08.2010 passed by Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Unnao in Misc. Case No.13/07 Aqeel Ahamd Vs. Saiffuddin and others. 4. Facts in brief as submitted by Sri Manish Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner are that a Regular Suit No. 41 of 1995 filed by one Sri Aqeel Ahmad challenging the compromise decree dated 16.12.1976 on the ground that the compromise was an outcome of fraud neither permission of the court was obtained nor the mandatory compliance of Order 23 Rule 1 CPC were complied with. It is further submitted that during the pendency of the said suit another suit was filed by O.P.Nos. 3 and 4 registered as Regular Suit No. 58 of 2006 for injunction with regard to the Waqf property and holding Mela against the Waqf and Muthawali. Thereafter Sri Saffuddin Khan Farooqui? and another (O.P. Nos. 2 and 3) filed a Writ Petition No. 4191 (MS) of 2008 before this Court, the same was disposed of vide order dated 11.03.2010 with the direction that "by the order dated 21.5.2008, this Court, as an interim measure, allowed the opposite party No.1 to withdraw Rs.60,000/- out of Rs.1,21,388/-, which was incurred by the opposite party No.1, as alleged. Accordingly, it is provided that in case, any application is moved for release of balance of the amount, which has already been deposited in the Bank under the orders passed by this Court, it will be open for the Trial Court to pass appropriate orders, after hearing both the parties, in accordance with law". 5. Present petitioner has filed a Writ Petition NO. 2923 (MS) of 2010 Waqf Musammat Nabban Waqf Unnao and another Vs. District Judge Unnao and Ors. disposed of vide order dated 17.05.2010 with the following directions:- "There is also an order passed by this court in writ petition No.1491 (MS) of 2008 to decide the suit No.58 of 2006 by 31.5.2010. Present petitioner has filed a Writ Petition NO. 2923 (MS) of 2010 Waqf Musammat Nabban Waqf Unnao and another Vs. District Judge Unnao and Ors. disposed of vide order dated 17.05.2010 with the following directions:- "There is also an order passed by this court in writ petition No.1491 (MS) of 2008 to decide the suit No.58 of 2006 by 31.5.2010. Accordingly that very suit has to be decided within the period stipulated by the court. 6. On the other hand learned counsel for the opposite parties 3 and 4 submitted that the trial court has consized both the cases with the consent of the learned counsels of the respective parties and that does not make any difference as the petitioners have still an opportunity to adduce the evidence in Suit No.58 of 2006 also and if this court interferes in the order passed by the court below, the petitioners shall be given an opportunity to linger on the matter. “Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the aforesaid order passed by this court in writ petition No.1491 (MS) of 2008 I am of the view that there is no error in the order impugned by consigning the suits. So far as the petitioners' grievance that they shall loose their right to adduce the evidence, I provide that since in Suit No.58 of 2006 the evidence is yet to be adduced, the petitioners have ample opportunity to adduce the evidence, whatever they like in their favour separately apart from the evidence adduced in Suit No.41 of 1995." 7. Moreover opposite party No. 2 to the instant case, 2 had filed a Writ Petition No. 7756 (MB) of 2010 and the same was disposed of vide order dated 11.08.2010 with the following direction:- "By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has made allegations that the issue cannot be decided as the opposite parties are adopting delaying tactics and they have also filed an appeal arising out of some interlocutory order. In the aforesaid background, we dispose of this writ petition with directions to trial court to conclude the trial within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order irrespective of any litigation pending anywhere as the thrust of all the orders passed by this Court, whether by learned Single Judge or by Division Bench, has been to ensure early disposal of the pending Civil Suit No. 58 of 2006. In the meantime the order passed by the Civil Judge appointing S.D.M. as Controller shall continue till the suit is finally disposed of." 8. Accordingly, in view of he direction given by this Court vide order dated 11.03.2010 in Writ Petition No. 1491 (MS) of 2008, the court below vide order dated 25.03.2010 had consolidated the Regular Suit No. 41 of 1995 and Regular Suit No. 58 of 2006 and in the said matter the evidence has been led by the parties.? 9. Thereafter an application has been moved on behalf of the petitioner for recalling of the compromise decree.and? a Misc. Case No. 13 of 20007 has been instituted before O.P. No. 1 and by means of the impugned order dated 4.08.2010, the O.P. No. 1 had rejected the said application, hence the present writ petition has been filed.? 10. Needless to mention that learned counsels present today have? agreed that all the matters in question i.e. Regular Suit No. 41 of 1995, Regular Suit No. 58 of 2006 and Misc. Case No. 13/2007 may be heard and decided by the O.P. No. 1 within a time framed as fixed by this Court keeping in view of the directions given earlier in the matter in question by this Court. 11. For the foregoing reasons, without entering into the merit of this case, the writ petition is finally disposed of with a direction to the O.P. No. 1/Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) Unnao to consolidate all the three matters i.e. Regular Suit No. 41 of 1995,? Regular Suit No. 58 of 2006 and Misc. Case No. 13/2007 and decide the same within a period of one month from the? date of receiving the certified copy of this order. 12. With the above observations, the writ petition is finally disposed of. Petition Disposed Off.