ORDER Dr. A. S. Anand, C.J.I.
1. We have perused the report of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Mohanlalganj, Lucknow dated 31.3.1999 and heard learned Counsel for the parties.
2. The learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) shall confirm the auction sale of the agricultural land, after hearing the objection, if any, on the next date fixed in the case i.e. 28.4.1999. The amount of Rs. 8,50,000, which has been received as the auction money in respect of sale of the agricultural land, shall be given to the Union of India against proper receipt.
3. So far as the house property, namely, House Nos. 546-547, situated at Sector. E, Hind Nagar, Kanpur Road, Lucknow is concerned, learned Counsel appearing for Shri Kubernath Jaiswal has today deposited in this Court an amount of Rs. 6,18,858 by bank drafts in the, name of the Deputy Registrar (Administration Supreme Court) being the balance amount of Rs. 14,68,858. The Deputy Registrar shall draw the amount of the bank drafts and pay the same to the Union of India against proper receipt. The auction-sale of the aforesaid house shall, therefore, not be confirmed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division). On account of the deposit made today in this Court by Shri Kubernath Jaiswal, the attachment of the above-mentioned house is vacated. It is, however, directed that Shri Kubernath Jaiswal shall not alienate the said house without the leave of this Court. The auction-sale of the aforesaid house is set aside.
4. We are rather concerned to note that Writ Petition No. 823 of 1999 [Krishna Kumar Tiwari v. Civil Judge (S.D.) Mohanlalganj] has been entertained by the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court. That writ petition is directed against the auction-sale of House No. 546-547, Sector E, Hind Nagar, Kanpur Road, Lucknow and seeks an order to the effect that the auction-sale be not confirmed. The learned Single Judge of the High Court has noticed, in the interim order made on 30-3-1999, that auction was being conducted under orders of this Court and that the matter concerning auction of the house was pending in this Court. How then a writ petition could be entertained in the High Court is not understandable. Judicial discipline required the High Court not to entertain any such petition, when the proceedings were pending in this Court in respect of the subject-matter of the case. The parties should have been asked to approach this Court, if so advised. The High Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition in the fact situation. We need say nothing further on this aspect except to record our displeasure. This order shall be brought to the notice of the High Court.
5. Insofar as the case against Shri Gorakhnath Jaiswal is concerned, let the matter be listed after four weeks.