.
DEVI LAL AND ANR.
A
v.
MOHAN PRASAD AND ANR.
MAY 9, 1996
[K. RAMASWAMY, FAIZAN UDDIN AND G.B. PATIANAIK, JJ.]
B
Colltempt of Court :
Selllence awarded in contempt case-Application for recalling the order
on the ground that result of the case and directions of Cowt were not C
commwticated to the applicants by their counsd-Heid, it would be nomtal
practice, unless contrary is proved, that counsel who appeared for the litigant
duly would intimate the result of the order passed by this Court-Besides,
applicants are said to have declined to receive dasti notice--Applicatim:
disn1isscd.
D
Practice and Procedure :
Communication of result of cases disposed of by the Court-Held, it
would be nonnal practice, unless contr<uy is proved, that counsel who ap-
peared for the litigant duly would intimate the result of the order passed by E
this Couri.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: I.A. Nos. 1-3 of 1996.
IN
Contempt Petition No. 148 of 1995.
IN
Special Leave Petition (C) No. 12300 of 1991.
From the Judgment and Order dated 22.3.91 of the Patna High Court
in C.R.P. No. 1708 of 1986.
N.S. Bisht for the Appellants.
K.D. Prasad and AN. Bardiyar for the Respondents.
651
F
G
H
652
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1996j SUPP. 2 S.C.R.
A
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
The petitioners pray in these petitions, among other things, lo 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 tu give
to vacate tht: pren1iscs. Tht.:y v.'ere not ~crve<l \Vith the da.'>ti .service: in the
13
contempt proceedings and, therefore, they were unaware uf the proceed-
ings that took place in this Court. Consequently, they were wrongly con-
victed. Their special leave petition against order of eviction upheld by the
High ('ourt wa:-; dismissed. Time, at rcqBcst, was g1ven to deliver vacant
possef'sion after expiry of the time and \vritten undL;rtaking was given. It is
C loo much Lo accept such contentions. lt is not is 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 petitioners duly would intimate the result of the order
passed by this Court. Undt;r these circumstances, this Court cannot inves-
D tigate into the fact whether the counsel for the petitioners had communi-
cated the order ur 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
E
F
effected. Consequently, we directed service by dasti so that personal notice
could be given to the petitione" by the respondents. An affidavit has been
tiled 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 respondents and sought to serve on
them. They had declined lo 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 directjng them to undergo sentence of six months awarded
in the contempt case.
All the I.As. arc accordingly disposed of.
R.P.
Petition dismissed of.
Lex