& Anr Vs. Mohan Prasad & Anr  INSC 693 (9 May 1996)
Faizan Uddin, G.B. Pattanaik
9TH AY OF MAY, 1996 Present:
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
O R D
following Order of the Court was delivered:
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.
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.
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 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.
the I.As are accordingly disposed of.
Pages: 1 2