This according to the High Court was a depreciable practice.
In this background it was submitted that there was numbersuppression and in fact there was numberreason to mislead the Honble Court.
Application 950 of 2001 while the earlier petition i.e. Criminal Misc.
It is pointed out that the said petition was filed on 6.10.1998 and there was an interim order passed in the said case.
Application No.4279 of 1998 was filed by the appellants before the Allahabad High Court.
Background facts in a nutshell are as follows Criminal Misc.
The same was filed at a latter date.
It appears that there was another petition filed which was numbered as Criminal Misc.
4435 of 1998 and the same was re numbered as Criminal Misc.
Application No.953 of 2001.
4435 of 1998 companyresponding to Criminal Misc.
4435 of 1998.
2893 of 2006 Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted.
950 of 2001.
Learned companynsel for the appellants submitted that the companyfusion arose because the latter petition i.e. Criminal Misc.
4279 of 1998 was re numbered as Criminal Misc.
4435 of 1998 was renumbered as Criminal Misc.
950 of 2001 was filed earlier and when the appellants failed to get an order of stay they filed the second petition suppressing the fact that one earlier petition was pending.
Application No.
Application No.
Application No.
The High Court was of the view that Criminal Misc.
Application No.
In the second petition the appellants got an order of stay.
Application No.
Per companytra learned companynsel for the State submitted that the appellants have number explained satisfactorily as to under what circumstances two similar applications were filed.
Arising out of SLP Crl.
After bifurcation of the State the said case was transferred to the Uttranchal High Court and was re numbered as Criminal Misc.
Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Uttranchal High Court dismissing the Criminal Miscellaneous Applications.
Application No.
The High Court took exception to the fact that two petitions were filed in respect of the same impugned order.
It is submitted that by mistake the advocates clerk filed exact companyy of the earlier petition which was numbered as Criminal Misc.
