JUDGMENT : Jaspreet Singh, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Notice on behalf of the respondents no.1 and 2 has been accepted by the office of the Chief Standing Counsel. Shri Mohan Singh, learned counsel has accepted notice on behalf of the respondent no.4. Shri Ashish Raman Mishra, learned counsel has appeared on caveat on behalf of the private respondent no.3. 2. Under challenge is the order dated 03.08.2024 passed by the Tehsildar, Tehsil Alapur, District Ambedkar Nagar in proceedings under Section 34 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. 3. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the mutation proceedings were initiated by the private respondent no.3. In the said proceedings, the present petitioner had filed his objection. In the said proceedings, the petitioner had put in appearance and had sought time to file his objections. 4. It has been pointed out that the matter was listed on 22.07.2024 and since the Members of the Bar were abstaining from the judicial work, the next date fixed was 05.09.2024. It is submitted that an application was moved allegedly under the signatures of the petitioner status that the applicant be granted time to engage Shri Uma Shankar Chaturvedi and Shri Durga Prasad as counsel and in furtherance thereof the Vakalatnama of the said counsel was filed. However, subsequently another application was moved allegedly on behalf of the present petitioner stating that he wants to engage Shri Ram Kesh Chauhan and Shri Mohd. Pervaz as his counsel. This application was filed on 25.07.2024. 5. Then on 29.07.2024, the said application was not pressed and on the very same date another application was moved indicating that the earlier application by which time was sought to file objection was also not pressed. 6. The contention is that the said application moved on 29.07.2024 was not filed under the signatures of the present petitioner and in order to cause prejudice to the petitioner the said application has been moved. It is also submitted that once Shri Mohd. Parverz had moved an application not pressing his Vakalatnama, then he had no authority to not-press the application by which time was sought by the petitioner to file objection. In such circumstances, it is stated that the order dated 03.08.2024 has been passed of which the petitioner had no knowledge and the said order has been passed behind the back of the petitioner. In such circumstances, it is stated that the order dated 03.08.2024 has been passed of which the petitioner had no knowledge and the said order has been passed behind the back of the petitioner. 7. Shri Ashish Raman Mishra, learned counsel for the private respondent no.3 has very fairly submitted that since the order dated 03.08.2024 has been passed ex parte and the fact remains that the matter was last listed on 22.07.2024, thereafter the date fixed was 05.11.2024 and in absence of any application for preponing the date the order could not have been passed hence the order may be set aside. However, he further emphasises that the ground upon which the petitioner has filed the instant petition is malicious and incorrect facts have been stated as the petitioner does not have any worthwhile objections and in order to linger the proceedings, this has been done. It is also urged that had the petitioner been aggrieved, he could have taken action against his erring lawyers which has also not been done. 8. Having considered the aforesaid submissions as well as the fair stand of Shri Mishra that he does not support the order dated 03.08.2024 as it is ex parte and passed on a date for which no date with prior intimation was known to the parties, hence the impugned order is set aside solely on the ground that the opportunity of hearing was not granted to the parties concerned. Accordingly the impugned order dated 03.08.2024 is set aside and the Tehsildar shall re-hear the matter and decide it afresh. The parties shall appear before the Court of Tehsildar on 23rd of September, 2024 and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned, the matter shall be decided within three weeks. None of the parties shall be granted any unnecessary adjournment and in case if any party chooses to misuse the liberty, exemplary costs shall be imposed as well as the Court shall be within its rights to proceed in accordance with law. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. 9. However, before parting with this Court this further notices that the stand of the petitioner is also not above board. The ground which have been taken apparently are not supported with the facts; inasmuch as the application is said to have been moved on 29.07.2024 whereby an earlier application seeking time was not pressed. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. 9. However, before parting with this Court this further notices that the stand of the petitioner is also not above board. The ground which have been taken apparently are not supported with the facts; inasmuch as the application is said to have been moved on 29.07.2024 whereby an earlier application seeking time was not pressed. Subsequently, the same has no meaning at all because the earlier application dated 03.05.2024 only was in the nature of adjournment and once the matter was adjourned for the next date, the said application had lost all its efficacy and therefore to state that because the said application was not pressed, some prejudice have been caused to the petitioner is absolutely misconceived. 10. The petitioner has also made certain allegation in this petition regarding the manner in which the subsequent Vakalatnama allegedly under his signatures was filed and the application for not pressing the said Vakalatnama on another date is a serious matter as it affects the solemnity of judicial and quasi judicial proceedings. 11. Counsel for the petitioner Sri Anand Prakash Pandey, Advocate submits on the basis of instruction of his client i.e. the petitioner that some action be taken against the erring persons, since the petitioner states that the Vakalatnama which have been filed including the application, a copy of which has been brought on record as annexure nos.3, 5 and 6 and it does not bear his signatures nor he had engaged Sri Mohd. Parverz and Shri Ram Kesh Chauhan Advocates as his counsel. Moreso when a previous application was already moved on 12.07.2024 wherein the petitioner had stated that he wished to engage Shri Uma Shankar Chaturvedi and Shri Durga Prasad as his counsel. 12. As the contention of the petitioner is that he was prejudiced on account of fraudulent insertions of Vakalatnama and its misuse, hence the Court directs the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ambedkar Nagar to get an inquiry done and he shall take sample signatures of the petitioner and get the same compared with the Vakalatnama filed on behalf of the petitioner from the document at running page 28 of the paper book with the controversial Vakalatnama which is at running page 39 and 40 and taking statements of the counsel who have been named in the two applications. Depending upon the conclusions of the inquiry necessary action shall be taken and it will be informed to this Court within four weeks from today. 13. It will be open for the petitioner to move an appropriate application before the Bar Council of U.P. in respect of the counsel against whom allegations have been made and if they are found to have misused, their fiduciary position vis a vis the petitioner, necessary action may be taken. 14. List on 5th of November, 2024 only for the purposes of ascertaining the status and out come of the inquiry.