Amar Jyoti Rice and General Mills vs State of U.P.& Anr.

B.K. Sharma, J.—Heard learned counsel for the applicant.

F.A.F.O. No. 498 of 1996 was finally disposed of by the Bench consisting of Hon''ble Om Prakash and R.K. Singh, JJ. on 14.8.96 with the observations that the impugned recovery will remain stayed against the appellant during the pendency of the suit, provided the appellant deposits the price of levy rice at the rate of Rs.510.40. per quintal and furnishes adequate security for the difference to the satisfaction of the Court below within three weeks. The present application has been moved by the plaintiffappellant with the allegation that it immediately applied for certified copy of the order dated 14.8.96, but the file was not traceable, hence it could not get certified copy of the said order till date, and that the office may be directed to trace the file and issue a certified copy forthwith that the mill in question has been attached during this period and that it is essential to direct the respondents to correct the period mentioned in the judgment and order dated 14.8.96 from the date of delivery of certified copy of the order of the High Court and withdraw the attachment at least for a period of three weeks to enable the petitioner to comply with the order. The prayer was that office be directed to trace the file and issue a certified copy forthwith and that the respondents be directed to correct the period mentioned in the judgment and order dated 14.8.96 from the date of delivery of certified copy of the order of the High Court and to withdraw the attachment at least for a period of three weeks to enable the applicant to comply with the order. This application is not supported by any affidavit. In respect of moving of application for a certified copy of the said order, the record of the case was called for from the office which readily came and the report of the office indicated that the application for certified copy of the order aforesaid was moved on behalf of the appellant on 6.9.1996.

During the course of arguments learned counsel for the applicant contended that this application was liable to be listed before the same Bench which had passed the order date & 14.8.96 in the aforesaid appeal. In support of his contention he placed reliance on Rule 13 in Chapter V of the High Court Rules (Allahabad). This Rule was not applicable in the present case. Rule 13 relates to a subsequent application to the same effect or with the same object as the previous application in the same case. Here this application is not a second or subsequent application. The order dated 14.8.96 was not an order made on an application moved in that appeal, but it was a final order disposing of the F.A.F.O. itself Moreover, the said Bench is not functioning and this application and the other applications have been listed before this Bench.

Coming to the merits of the application, there is nothing to show that the file of the aforesaid F.A.F.O. was not traceable at any stage. Further, the verbal assertion of the learned counsel for the applicant before this Bench was that earlier the folio (sic) for issuing a certified copy of the order dated 14.8.1996 m the said appeal was filed on the next day but it became untraceable and the record of the appeal also was reported by the office to be untraceable and so he filed another folio for issuing the certified copy the order and that even upon that folio also the certified copy has not been issued as yet and prayed that for this reason the time for compliance granted in the order dated 14.8.1996 in the F.A.F.O. aforesaid should be extended and corrected from the date the certified copy of the same is issued by the office of the High Court and that the said order should be modified accordingly.

As noted above, there is no affidavit filed in support of this application. Further the averments made verbally by the learned counsel for the applicant before this Bench is contradicted by the contents of the application itself. The application speaks about moving of only one application and rules out the moving of two successive copying applications by the counsel for the applicant. It is also noteworthy that in the present application no particular date of moving copying application was disclosed. What was stated in the application was that the petitioner immediately applied for the certified copy of the order dated 14.8.96. The word ''immediately'' appears to have been used deliberately to give the impression that the copying application was moved within a reasonable time after the passing of the order dated 14.8.96 finally disposing of the appeal. The factual position noted earlier is that copying application was moved on 6.9.1996 which means that the time given in the order dated 14.8.96 for compliance had already expired. So, there is no occasion to amend or modify the order dated 14.8.96. Furthermore, the order itself has provided for the contingency where for some reason the money is not Deposited within the time permitted, the trial Court is left free to extend the time for deposit of the money. So, the applicant was free to move the trial court for extending the time. The prayer made in this application in this respect is, therefore, uncalled for and is rejected.

So far as the question of lifting the attachment is concerned, there is no occasion for lifting the attachment as the F.A.F.O. has already been finally disposed by the aforesaid Bench. This prayer is, therefore, rejected.

If the certified copy of the order dated 14.8.96 had not yet been issued in pursuance of the copying application dated 6.9.1996, it will be issued to the learned counsel for the applicant within twentyfour hours.

This application is disposed of accordingly.