Mr. G.S. Sandhawalia J.: - Prayer in the present revision petition, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, by the plaintiff-petitioners, is for setting aside the order dated 01.06.2010 (Annexure P2), whereby the application, filed for recalling the order dated 07.01.2008 (Annexure P3), vide which the Civil Suit of the plaintiff-petitioners for possession was rejected on the ground that there was no proper explanation for the non-appearance of the plaintiff on the date fixed and also that the application was time-barred. The order dated 01.12.2010 (Annexure P1), passed by the Additional District Judge, Gurgaon is also subject matter of challenge, upholding the order of the Trial Court by recording a finding that the same was a revisable order and only a revision could be instituted.

2. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has been at pains to explain the background of the case as to how the petitioner, who is a NRI, is fighting the litigation and trying to save his immoveable property which has been fraudulently sold.

3. Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that the property had been sold by a registered power of attorney and it was only an attempt to keep the litigation pending and even the criminal proceedings had ended in favour of the respondents as they had been acquitted of the charges framed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class on 03.09.2014.

4. In order to appreciate the dispute, the facts will necessarily have to be gone into.

5. A perusal of the paperbook would go on to show that the petitioner and his wife had been allotted plot No.382 measuring 500 sq.yards in Sector 14 in the urban estate at Gurgaon on 06.03.1973. A registered general power of attorney is alleged to have been executed on 07.06.1984 (Annexure P5), whereby they had appointed one Inder Singh, respondent No.2 as their attorney to do the necessary acts regarding the said plot and to apply for transfer etc. On the strength of the said power of attorney, the plot was transferred to Vipin Khanna, respondent No.1 herein on 23.08.1984. The petitioner filed a suit for possession on 01.12.1986 alleging that they had never executed the power of attorney in favour of respondent No.2 and that the same was false and fabricated and respondent No.1 had illegally occupied the plot without any right. The date of knowledge was attributed to be on 30.01.1986 when they had visited India and on subsequent enquiry from the office of the Haryana Urban Development Authority (its acronym, ‘HUDA’)-respondent No.3, herein. In the meantime, respondent No.1-Vipin Khanna sold the property to one Inder Kumar Bansal and Sumitra Bansal on 27.10.1986. The suit was decreed ex parte on 24.11.1995 (Annexure P8) against the attorney and respondent No.1, the first beneficiary, on the ground that as per the photocopy of the passport of the petitioner, he had never visited India in 1984. Warrants of possession in execution of the decree in question were also issued by the Executing Court.

6. An appeal was also preferred by HUDA, respondents No.3 & 4, before the Additional District Judge which was dismissed on 02.08.1999. The objections were filed by the second purchaser, Inder Kumar Bansal in execution petition which were dismissed on 13.02.2007 on the ground that the occupation certificate of the second purchaser was dated 02.10.1989, i.e., after the institution of the suit and the judgment and decree dated 24.11.1995 had become final and the objections filed on 19.03.2003, after fourteen years of purchase were only for the purpose of frustrating the decree and warrants of possession were issued vide the said order. The second purchaser, therefore, approached this Court in CR No.1475 of 2007 titled Inder Kumar Bansal Vs. Vipin Khanna & others in which the present petitioners were arrayed as respondents No.5 & 6. Vide order dated 17.03.2007, this Court stayed their dispossession, keeping in mind the fact that the Executing Court should have