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: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. FAIZAN UDDIN (J) G.B. PATTANAIK (J)

CITATION:  1996 SCALE  (5)77

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                   THE 9TH DAY 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: Devi Lal & Anr. V. Mohan Prasad & Anr.                          O R D E R      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 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  duly  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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

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 receive  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.