Court No. - 7 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 36471 of 1995 Petitioner :- Raj Singh Respondent :- Iii A.D.J., Saharanpur & Others Petitioner Counsel :- H.S. Nigam Respondent Counsel :- S.C. Hon'ble Devendra Pratap Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
This petition is directed against concurrent orders
dated 18.9.1990 and 2.12.1995 by which objection of
the petitioner in Misc. Case No. 148 of 1988 has
been passed rejecting the recall application.
It appears that a Suit No. 231 of 1973 for
possession and injunction was instituted by the
contesting respondent against the petitioner’s
predecessor in interest which was decreed and an
Execution Case No. 3 of 1980 was filed and
possession was delivered to the decree holder on
25.4.1988 and the execution was struck off in
satisfaction of the decree. However, another
Execution Case No. 8 of 1996 was filed for recovery
of cost and during the pendency of the said
execution the petitioner took unauthorized
possession of a part of the disputed property and
thus, amendment was also sought which was allowed
(refer to paragraph 2 of the counter affidavit and
its reply in the rejoinder affidavit). The
petitioner filed his objections but the same was
dismissed in default and a restoration application
filed was also dismissed against which he preferred
a revision which has been dismissed and both the
orders are under challenge in this petition.
This petition was entertained in 1995 and was
dismissed on 22.9.2001. After about two years a
recall application no. 93795 of 2003 was filed
stating that he came to know that he would be
evicted in pursuance of the decree and only then he
contacted his counsel when he found about the
aforesaid order. The court granted indulgence to the
petitioner and recalled the dismissal order vide its
order dated 3.7.2003 and restored the writ petition.
Again this petition was dismissed for non
prosecution on 18.9.2007 and again the present
recall application has been filed after about three
years on 1.7.2010 repeating the ground that he came
to know through rumours that he would be evicted and
thus, he contacted his counsel.
The suit was filed in 1973 and the decree was put in
execution and possession was delivered but illegally
he again took possession of a part of the disputed
property resulting in a second round of execution
where again his objections have been dismissed.
Twice this petition was dismissed and after
inordinate delay he filed restoration application
raising the very same ground in both seeking recall
of the order. If courts start granting indulgence to
such recalcitrant litigant, it would be nothing else
but abuse of the process of court. Therefore, on
these facts, the court is not inclined to recall the
order dated 18.9.2007.
Accordingly, the delay condonation and the recall
applications are rejected.
Order Date :- 3.8.2010
AK
Hon’ble Devendra Pratap Singh,J.
Rejected.
For order see my order of date passed on writ
petition.
Order Date :- 3.8.2010
AK
Hon’ble Devendra Pratap Singh,J.
Rejected.
For order see my order of date passed on writ
petition.
Order Date :- 3.8.2010
AK