Sibghat Ullah Khan, J. - (1.) INSPITE of sufficient service as per office report dated 18.04.2011 no one has appeared on behalf of Petitioner.
(2.) THE first argument of learned Counsel for the applicants in this recall application, who are legal representatives of Respondent No. 3 in this writ petition i.e. Ved Prakash is that Sri. Ved Prakash had died on 25.01.2007, hence, judgment dated 22.05.2007 allowing the writ petition is a nullity against the legal representatives of Respondent No. 3. The second argument is that Petitioner himself had filed an application for dismissal of the writ petition against Respondent No. 3 regarding plot No. 697 area 23 feet x 12 feet. The said application is dated 03.01.2001 and was filed on the same day and is available on the record. In view of the above this recall application is allowed after condoning the delay in filing the same and judgment and order dated 22.05.2007 passed in this writ petition in so far as it is against Respondent No. 3 is vacated and writ petition against him is dismissed. However, as the interest of the Respondent No. 3 on the one hand and interest of Respondent Nos. 4 to 6 on the other hand was quite separate and both the sets had filed separate appeals (consolidated judgment of both the appeals was challenged through this writ petition) hence the judgment dated 22.05.2007 passed in this writ petition shall stand as against Respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6 of the writ petition.
(3.) RECALL application is allowed and the judgment dated 22.05.2007 passed in the writ petition is modified accordingly.;