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.