Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
DEVI LAL & ANR.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
MOHAN PRASAD & ANR.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 09/05/1996
BENCH:
K. RAMASWAMY, FAIZAN UDDIN, G.B. PATTANAIK
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
THE 9TH AY OF MAY, 1996
Present:
Hon’ble Mr.Justice K.Ramaswamy
Hon’ble Mr.Justice Faizan Uddin
Hon’ble Mr.Justice G.B. Pattanaik
N.S. Bisht, Adv. for the appellants
K.D. Prasad and A.N. Bardiyar, Advs. for the Respondents
O R D E R
The following Order of the Court was delivered:
The petitioners pray in these petitions, among others
things, to recall our order dated 8.1.1996. They say that
the counsel who appeared for them did not inform the result
and the undertaking they were required to give to vacate the
premises. They were not served with the dasti service in
the contempt proceedings and, therefore, they were unaware
of the proceedings that took place in this Court.
Consequently, they were wrongly convicted. Their special
leave petition against order or eviction upheld by the High
Court was dismissed. Time, at request, was given to deliver
vacant possession after expiry of the time and written
undertaking was given. it is too much to accept such
contentions. It is not in dispute that Mrs. Gyan Sudha
Misra, counsel appearing on their behalf had filed the SLP.
It is not in dispute that Mrs. Gyan Sudha Misra, counsel
appearing on their behalf had filed the SLP. It is not
their case that they made enquiry of the result of the case
in this Court. It would be normal practice, unless contrary
is proved, that the counsel who appeared for the petitioner
fully would intimate the result of the order passed by this
Court. Under these circumstances, this Court Cannot
investigate into the fact whether the counsel for the
petitioner had communicated the order or not. It is not
their case that they have vacated the premises after the SLP
came to be dismissed by this Court after expiry of given
period. The postal service of notice in contempt petition
has not been effected. Consequently, we directed service by
dasti so that personal notice could be given to the
petitioner by the respondents. An affidavit has been filed
by Mohan Prasad, son of Dwarka Prasad, the respondent in the
SLP and the petitioner in the contempt petition, wherein he
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
has stated that he had taken the service personally to the
respondent and sought to serve on them. They had declined
to received the notice. Thus, service of notice could not
be effected through dasti. We do not find that any case is
made out to recall the order directing them to undergo
sentence of six months awarded in the contempt case.
All the I.As are accordingly disposed of.