JUDGMENT Mr. Jasbir Singh, J.(Oral):- This appeal has been filed against an interim order dated 27.05.2011. The order reads thus:- “The application has been filed for recalling order dated 10.05.2011. Notice of the application for 04.07.2011. In the meantime, the petitioner is required to make a clear statement in terms of what has been recorded in order dated 01.04.2011. In case the petitioner gives in writing to the Municipal Corporation that he is ready to join auction proceedings for purchase of the property at the highest rate, to be determined in auction proceedings, on giving such an undertaking in writing, the possession of the petitioner would be protected.” 2. This order has been passed in an application filed by the appellant to recall order dated 10.05.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge. It is an admitted fact that against the above order, the appellant had earlier filed LPA No. 866 of 2011 which was disposed of by this Court on 18.05.2011 by passing the following order:- “This appeal has been filed against an order dated 10.05.2011 passed by this Court in CWP No. 9790 of 2008 which reads thus:- “Present: Mr. Jagdish Manchanda, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. B.S.Saini, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana. Mr. Narender Hooda, Advocate, for respondent No. 2. Learned counsel for petitioner prays for time. Order dated 29.5.2008 ordering stay of dispossession is hereby vacated. It is however made clear that in case the petitioner wants to make offer for purchase of plot at current market rate, petitioner would be at liberty to join proceedings and make offer. Adjourned to 13.9.2011. Let copy of the order be given under signatures of Special Secretary of the Branch. May 10, 2011 Sd/- (Ajai Lamba) Judge” At the time of argument, it has been brought to our notice that vide order dated 1.04.2011, the learned Single Judge asked the counsel for the petitioner to get instructions as to whether the petitioner is ready to purchase the land as per offer made by the Municipal Corporation. The order reads thus:- “The order under challenge in this petition have been passed under the Haryana Public Premises Act. The petitioner has been ordered to be ejected. A prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is ready and willing to purchase the property in terms of policy placed on record as Annexure P-12 and P-15. The petitioner has been ordered to be ejected. A prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is ready and willing to purchase the property in terms of policy placed on record as Annexure P-12 and P-15. Learned counsel for the respondent-Municipal Corporation, Faridabad contends that Annexure P-12 would be applicable only to Municipal Committees. Be that as it may, so as to determine the price of land, the authorities have to determine the price in reference to provisions of Section 164 (c) of the Haryana Municipal Corporation Act, 1994. The Corporation is ready and willing to auction the land which would indicate the market value of the land and petitioner would be at liberty to purchase at that value. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for time to take instructions. Adjourned to 04.04.2011. Last opportunity. “On 4.04.2011, none appeared on behalf of the petitioners and the following order was passed:- “None for the petitioner(s). Mr. B.S. Saini, Sr. DAG, Haryana. Mr. Narender Hooda, Advocate for respondent No. 2. Shri Jagdish Manchanda, Advocate, counsel for the petitioner, was to take instructions in the context of contents of order dated 1.4.2011. None, however, has put in appearance on behalf of the petitioner. Adjourned to 18.04.2011. Last opportunity.” An order passed on 18.04.2011 reads as under:- “Present: Mr. Jagdish Manchanda, Advocate for the petitioner(s). Mr. S.S.Nara, Sr. DAG, Haryana. Mr. Narender Hooda, Advocate for respondent No. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks a short adjournment. Adjourned to 10.05.2011.” Vide order dated 10.05.2011, the stay was vacated. It appears that when that order was passed, the learned Single Judge might have got an impression that the petitioner is trying to delay the disposal of the matter. Learned counsel for the appellant told us that in terms of the order passed by the learned Single Judge on 1.04.2011 he has got instructions from the petitioner and by moving an application will disclose the entire position before the learned Single Judge. Under the circumstances, we dispose of this appeal with liberty to the appellant to move an appropriate application for recalling of order dated 10.05.2011 by disclosing a fact whether the appellant is ready to accept the offer made by the Municipal Corporation on 1.04.2011 or not. Copy of this order be given to the counsel for the parties under the signatures of the Court Secretary of this Court. Copy of this order be given to the counsel for the parties under the signatures of the Court Secretary of this Court. Sd/- Judge Sd/- Judge 18th May, 2011" 2. It is apparent from the record that after getting an interim stay order passed in its favour, none appeared for the appellant on some dates before the learned Single Judge. That fact was taken by the learned Single Judge as a deliberate attempt to delay the matter. In view of the above, order dated 04.07.2011 was passed. In the order dated 18.05.2011, we also felt so. However, liberty was granted to the petitioner to move an application for recall of order dated 04.07.2011, after complying with the earlier order passed on 01.04.2011. It was stated in the Court before us, by counsel for the appellant that he had got instructions from the appellant in terms of the order mentioned above which will be disclosed before the learned Single Judge. Thereafter, an application was filed to recall the order. Interim order under challenge was passed on 27.05.2011. The appellant was directed to approach the Municipal Corporation with an offer that it is ready to purchase the property in auction. Next date in the case was fixed on 04.07.2011. Nothing was done. This appeal was filed only on 04.07.2011. Being incomplete in all respects, it was returned to the appellant. 3. Thereafter, appeal was refiled only on 25.07.2011. Again objection was raised, which was removed thereafter. 4. The facts mentioned above clearly indicate that there is a deliberate attempt on the part of the appellant to delay the matter. 5. No case is made out for interference. 6. Dismissed. ----------0BSK0----------