JUDGMENT 1. - Mr. Mahendra Gaur, for the petitioner. 2. The execution of an eviction decree passed in favour of the landlord and against the lawyer-tenant has unfortunately engulfed the legal fraternity in the State of Rajasthan. 3. The dispute between landlord, the respondents No.2 and 3, and the tenant, the petitioner, has been raging for about fourteen years. The respondents No.2 and 3 had filed an eviction suit against the petitioner which was eventually decreed in their favour by judgment dated 25.7.2003. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the petitioner filed a Civil First Appeal, namely S.B. Civil Regular First Appeal No.453/2003, before this court which is still pending. By order dated 24.10.2007, this court had stayed the execution of the decree through a conditional order. However, as the petitioner failed to adhere to the conditions imposed by this court, by order dated 18.2.2014, the stay order was vacated. Since the petitioner was aggrieved by the order dated 18.2.2014, he filed a D.B. Civil Special Appeal, namely D.B. Special Appeal (Civil) No.3/2014, before a Division Bench of this court. However, by judgment dated 30.5.2014, the said Special Appeal was also dismissed. Therefore, the landlord pressed for execution of the decree. Meanwhile, the petitioner filed a SLP, namely SLP(C)(CC) No.11467/2014, before the Hon'ble Supreme Court challenging the orders dated 18.2.2014 and 30.5.2014. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the said SLP has been withdrawn. 4. In this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 5.7.2014, and the order dated 18.8.2014 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge No.13, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur. By the former order, the learned Judge has issued a possession warrant against the petitioner; by the latter order, the learned Judge has directed that the warrant should be executed with the help of the police. 5. Mr. Mahendra Gaur, the learned counsel for the petitioner, informed this court that ever since the submission of the present petition much water has flown under the bridge. When this court asked Mr. Gaur to elaborate as to what has happened after the submission of the present petition, he declined to do so. Instead, he insisted that it is for the respondents No.2 and 3 to inform this court about the subsequent events that have taken place after this petition was submitted before this court. When this court asked Mr. Gaur to elaborate as to what has happened after the submission of the present petition, he declined to do so. Instead, he insisted that it is for the respondents No.2 and 3 to inform this court about the subsequent events that have taken place after this petition was submitted before this court. He merely informed this court that since the petitioner was aggrieved by the orders dated 18.2.2014 and 30.5.2014, the petitioner had filed a SLP before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. However, subsequently the petitioner has withdrawn the said SLP. This court tried to convince Mr. Gaur that as an officer of the court it is his primary duty to inform this court about the subsequent developments especially when he has made a statement that "much water has flown under the bridge". But despite the request of the court, Mr. Gaur continued to be unmoved. 6. This court, then, asked the learned counsel to open the case and to address this court with regard to the impugned orders. To this request, Mr. Gaur responded that "there is no requirement in law that a lawyer should address the court. Whatever the petitioner had to say has been written in black and white in the petition itself, and this court should issue notice to the respondents immediately". For, according to him, it is for the respondents to reveal the subsequent development of the case. This court pointed out that until and unless a prima facie case is made out for issuance of a notice to the respondents, the court is not required to issue notice as of right. This court again requested him to plead his case. But he refused to do so. 7. Merely by submitting a petition before a court neither the litigant, nor his counsel can claim that he has "pleaded" his cause. Both in the interest of his client, and as an officer of the court, a lawyer is legally required to assist the court in understanding the facts of the case, the dispute(s) involved in the case, the issues which may arise in the case, and the law which is applicable to the case. At the stage of admission, the counsel is required to make out a prima facie case in favour of the petitioner so as to convince the court to issue notice to the respondents. At the stage of admission, the counsel is required to make out a prima facie case in favour of the petitioner so as to convince the court to issue notice to the respondents. The petitioner cannot insist, by way of right, that a notice must be issued to the respondent without first prima facie satisfying the court about the merits of his/her case. By merely filing a petition, the counsel, as an officer of the court, does not absolve himself from his responsibility of assisting the court in reaching a judicious decision. Therefore, the attitude of Mr. Gaur is, rather, perplexing. His consistent insistence that notice must be issued to the respondents without his making out a prima facie case is legally untenable. Since no prima facie case has been made out by him, this court is not inclined to issue any notice to the respondents. 8. Even otherwise, the petitioner has made the following prayers before this court:- "(i) By an appropriate writ, order or direction and more particularly a certiorari writ, the impugned orders dated 5/7/2014 and 18/8/2014 be quashed and set aside. By further writ, order or direction the possession warrant issued by the respondent No.1 and eviction of the petitioner from the suit premises with the help of police force and as per provisions of Order 21, Rule 35 (3) be quashed and set aside to prevent miscarriage of justice. (ii) By further appropriate writ, order or directions the respondents No. 4, 5 & 6 be directed to desist from carrying out compliance of impugned order dated 18/8/2014 passed by respondent No.1. (iii) By further appropriate writ, order or directions the whole proceedings carried out by the respondent No.1 in arbitrary and illegal manner be reversed and ordered to be held de-novo. (iv) By further appropriate writ, order or directions, the respondent No. 1 to 3 be prosecuted under the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for arbitrarily and malafidely interfering in the course of justice by initiating parallel proceedings of which the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India is seized of the matter. (v) Any other appropriate order or relief, which this Hon'ble court deems just and proper looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be passed in favour of the appellant-applicant." 9. (v) Any other appropriate order or relief, which this Hon'ble court deems just and proper looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be passed in favour of the appellant-applicant." 9. The present case has caught the media attention as it has led the learned members of the Bar, in most of Rajasthan, to abstain from their work in the court. It has been reported in media that after passing of the impugned order dated 18.8.2014, with the help of the police, the property in dispute has been vacated and the possession has been handed over to the landlords, the respondents No.2 and 3. Therefore, the petitioner's prayer No.(i) that the orders dated 5.7.2014 and 18.8.2014 issuing the possession warrant, and issuing direction to get the property in dispute vacated with the help of the police respectively, be quashed and set aside, cannot be granted. For, the impugned orders have already been carried out. Moreover, respondents No.4, 5 and 6 the Deputy Commissioner of Police, the SHO, and the Ameen respectively, can no longer be directed to desist from carrying out compliance of the impugned order dated 18.8.2014 as the matter is already fait accompli. Hence, prayer No.(ii) cannot be granted. Similarly, the prayer No.(iii) cannot be granted as the Civil First Appeal is still pending before this court; any order with regard to the judgment and decree needs to be passed by the Coordinate Bench hearing the Civil First Appeal. Likewise, prayer No.(iv) cannot be granted as according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the SLP filed by the petitioner has already been withdrawn. Since the learned counsel has not argued the case, he has failed to convince this court that the dispute is still alive and deserves to be interfered with. Therefore, this case has become infructuous. 10. Consequently, this petition is hereby, dismissed as having become infructuous. The stay application also stands dismissed.Petition Dismissed. *******