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.

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 appeared 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.

Contempt Petition No. 148 of 1995.

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

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 proceedings that took place in this Court. Consequently, they were wrongly convicted. 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 communicated 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

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.