Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

59. Having satisfied itself from documentary evidence that the plaintiffs were the owners of House No.561/232-A, as also on the basis of affidavit filed by Om Prakash Misra in support of the plaint, the Trial Court had decreed the suit as aforesaid.

60. In the order dated 27.05.2009 on the Recall application moved by the Petitioner the Learned Trial Court has referred to the contents of the application for Recall supported by affidavit. The application stated that the Applicant petitioner lived in House No.561/234 New Sindhu Nagar, Lucknow and the plaintiffs wished to usurp the house. The Applicant petitioner filed Regular Suit No.144/1994 before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Havali, Lucknow, for permanent injunction against the plaintiffs. The Plaintiff No.6 was instrumental in getting his daughter-in-law to file Regular Suit No.294 of 2003 for Eviction and Damages fraudulently showing the wrong House Number namely House No.561/232-A, New Sindhu Nagar, as address of the applicant petitioner. No notice was ever served regarding Regular Suit No.294 of 2003 on the applicant petitioner either through Registered Post or through process server of the court as wrong House number was intentionally mentioned as address of the defendant in the said Suit.

61. Also, the newspaper in which publication was made of notice of said suit was not circulated in the locality in which the applicant petitioner lives and therefore he could not derive any knowledge in time to appear and answer the plaintiffs claim. The applicant petitioner came to know of the decree dated 23.05.2006 only on 03.7.2006 when a third person told him about some Suit having been filed in which a decree had been obtained by Sri Om Prakash Mishra and others against him.

62. The private respondents herein filed their objections the Recall Application and the Application for Condonation of Delay in which they stated that both notice through Registered Post and summons through Process Server were duly served. Also publication was made in a newspaper determined by the Trial Court itself. It was also stated that in Regular Suit No.144 of 1994 a written statement was filed in August, 2003 in which mention was made of pendency of Regular Suit No.294 of 2003. Replication was filed by the applicant petitioner in the said Suit No.144 of 1999 which showed that he had knowledge the pendency of Regular Suit No. 294 of 2003.