- (1.) R. B. Mehrotra, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner Shri M. Dixit and Shri H. M. Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for Shri Rajendra Singh.
(2.) THE present writ petition was filed by Shri Kuldeep, Viswadeep and Jagdeep, all are sons of Shri Rabindra Lal Tripathi under the guardianship of their mother Smt. Ansuyiya Devi. THE Branch Manager, Bhumi Vikas Bank, Fatehpur and Tehsildar/sub-Divisional Officer were impleaded as respondents. It was stated in the writ petition that the grandfather of the petitioners took loan for purchase of a tractor in the year 1984. THE property of the petitioners was mortgaged to the bank concerned. But the loanee failed to pay the instalments as per schedule and the tractor of the petitioners was attached and sold for Rs. 60,500 in the year 1983-84. Subsequently Guru Prasad died and the property as per Will Deed developed on the minor sons, grandsons of Guru Prasad, namely, the petitioners herein. It was further alleged that the Will Deed executed in the favour of the petitioners was duly registered. THE bank issued a citation against Guru Prasad. A recovery certificate was annexed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition. THE date of recovery certificate is 27-7-94. Subsequently another recovery certificate was issued against Guru Prasad for Rs. 1,08,451 and other dues. This recovery certificate has been filed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition. THE date of this citation is not mentioned in the annexure. In Para 5 of the writ petition, it has been stated that the petitioners, due to successive failure of the agricultural crops, were unable to pay the loan in time. It was further stated that the petitioners are ready to pay the amount in instalments to be fixed by this Court. The recovery was challenged on the ground that the recovery proceedings are vitiated being in violation of the rules framed under U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. On such facts the Court has been granting indul gence in favour of the petitioners who have not been able to pay their loan due to contingency of failure of the crops or such other similar circumstances and had been permitting the petitioners to pay the loan in instalments. In the circumstances as mentioned in the writ petition the routine order was passed by this Court on 10-7-95 permitting the petitioners to pay back the loan in four equal instalments. However it was made clear that the order will not be applicable, if the petitioners have filed any other writ petition earlier in this Court challenging the recovery relating to the aforesaid loan. After passing of the aforesaid order, an application has been moved on behalf of Shri Rajendra Singh for recalling the aforesaid order on the ground that the petitioners have obtained the aforesaid order by suppressing the material docu ments, concocted facts incorrect information, and fabricated documents. It has been averred, by Sri Rajendra Singh, in the affidavit filed in support of the aforesaid application, seeking recall of my order dated 10-7-95, that bank initiated the recovery proceedings demanding a sum of Rs. 1,08,451 and recovery certificate was issued against Hans Lal, Ravindra Lal and Rajendra Prasad, sons of Guru Prasad. Therefore, accordingly property of Hans Lal, Ravindra Lal and Rajendra Prasad was attached and put to an auction sale on 30-8-1994. The auction of sale was confirmed on 10th October, 1994, by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and the sale-deed was executed on 12th October, 1994 in favour of Sri Rajendra Prasad who has moved the present application. Affidavit further states that in pursuance of the aforesaid sale-deed the name of Shri Rajendra Singh, has been mutated in revenue records. It has been stated in the aforesaid application that petitioners have already filed suit No. 770 of 1994 on 28- 10-94 challenging the aforesaid recovery proceedings and father of the petitioner has also filed suit No. 57 of 1994 in the Court of Munsif, Fatehpur challenging the aforesaid recovery. On this basis request has been made for recalling my order dated 10-7-95, on the aforesaid application 1 issued notice to Sushree Ansuyiya Devi, who filed the writ petition and it was directed that the notice be sent to Chief Judicial Magistrate by speed Post to be served on Smt. Ansuyiya Devi who shall ensure service of the notice on her and she was also required to show cause as to why proceedings for contempt may not drawn against her. Despite the aforesaid direction my order was not complied with and the notice was not served on Smt. Ansuyiya Devi. However, Shri M. Dixit, put in appearance on 17-1-96 and sought time to file counter affidavit to the aforesaid application. The time prayed for was granted and the application was directed to come up on 13-3-96. On 13-3-96 the matter was listed. No counter affidavit was filed to the aforesaid application. At the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Smt. Ansuyiya Devi further two weeks time was granted for filing counter affidavit On that date it was made clear that no further time will be granted and the matter was fixed for final hearing on 1-4-1996. Counter affidavit it has not been filed despite a stop order having been passed on 12-3-1996 in the presence of Shri M. Dixit, learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt. Ansuyiya Devi. Sri M. Dixit has again made request for granting time to file counter affidavit. In view of the facts aforesaid I see no jurisdiction for granting any further indulgence. The request is accordingly rejected.
(3.) ON the facts stated above I am fully convinced that the writ petition has been filed, concealing the material facts. The facts stated in application duly sup ported by an affidavit have not been controverted. In pursuance to the recovery, notices were issued to the petitioners father, the agricultural land was already sold out in favour of Shri Raiendra Singh, the necessary facts were concealed and the order was obtained by playing fraud, on the Court. Accordingly the order dated 10-7- 95 is recalled. However I am not prepared to leave the matter, as this practice of filing writ petition by concealing facts or on false facts is on the increase and require stern action whenever any such fact is brought to the notice of the court. 1 am of the view that Ansuyiya Devi should also be punished for practising fraud on the court by filing a writ petition wilfully concealing the material facts. However in the interest of justice Smt. Ansuiya Devi should be heard on this aspect of the matter. Accordingly I direct that Smt. Ansuyiya Devi be present in court on 2nd May, 1996. One Shri Krishna Kumar Shukla son of Satya Narain Shukla r/o Mohalla Bilkaush district Fatehpur who has filed an affidavit in support of the writ petition be also issued notice for appearing in person on 2nd May, 1996 as to why he should not be punished for conniving with the petitioners for obtaining the order from this Court fraudulently.;