- (1.)RAKESH Tiwari, J. This recall application has been filed by the petitioner alongwith Application No. 110206/07 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act read with Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code for condonation of delay. Recall application for recall of the judgment and order dated 20-12-2006 supported by an affidavit and Civil Misc. Stay Application under Section 151 C. P. C. aforesaid for keeping the judgment dated 20-12- 2006 in abeyance during the pendency of the recall application has also been filed.
(2.)THE recall application alongwith affidavit has been filed with following prayer : "it is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to recall the order dated 20-11-2006 passed by Hon'ble Mr. Sanjay Misra, J. and/or grant such other and further relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, otherwise the applicants/respondents shall suffer irreparable loss and injury. "
In the affidavit filed in support of the aforesaid applications it is averred that the writ petition was filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 27-10-2005 passed in S. C. C. Revision No. 21 of 2004; that it appears from the order sheet that Court by order dated 2-2-2006 had issued notices which were in fact issued on 10-2-2006 by RPAD fixing 20-3-2006 but in fact no notice has been served on the applicant-respondents at any point of time; that it further appears that undelivered cover had been returned back and that on 14-9-2006 granting time to the petitioner to take fresh steps for service of notice upon respondent Nos. 1 and 5; that on 9-10-2006, notices were issued to respondent Nos. 1 to 5 by RPAD fixing 13-11-2006. The Office vide report dated 10-11-2006 reported that undelivered covers in respect of respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 had returned back with remark of the Post Office.

As regards opposite party Nos. 1 and 5, the office reported that neither acknowledgment nor undelivered covers have been received back after service as yet and no one has put in appearance on behalf of opposite party Nos. 1 and 5.

(3.)IT is further averred that on 20-11-2006 Hon'ble Sanjay Misra, J. pleased passed an order to the effect that in view of the office report dated 10-11-2006 notices on the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 would be deemed to be sufficient under the Rules of the Court and office will proceed accordingly; that on 13-12- 2006 this Court passed the order to the effect that service of notices has already been deemed to be sufficient and as no counter- affidavit has been filed, therefore, direction was issued to list the case in the next cause list for admission/hearing. The learned Counsel for the petitioner was also directed to give his case laws on the next date. Thereafter, the case was listed on 20-12-2006 when it has been allowed by quashing the order and judgment dated 27-10-2005 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 6, Bijnor in S. C. C. Revision No. 21 of 2004.
The contention of the learned Counsel for the respondents is that the postman neither came to serve summons upon them nor made any enquiry or information from the respondents hence it appears that the petitioner has managed the endorsement of the postman in collusion with him; that at no point of time, the notice had been served upon the respondent, as such, the order dated 20-11-2006 deeming the service to be sufficient on respondent Nos. 1 to 4 is neither in accordance with law nor in accordance with Rules of the Court and there is no order for sufficiency of service of order of notice on respondent No. 5 in so far as he is covered by order dated 20-12-2006, the Court allowed the writ petition quashing the judgment and order dated 27-10-2005 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 6, Bijnor in S. S. C. Revision No. 21 of 2004.