The transferee pendente lite is bound by a judgment and decree passed against the vendor, and the presumption of knowledge applies. Recall applications must have bona fide reasons to be considered.

Anjani Kumar Mishra, J.

Heard Shri Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal, learned counsel for the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 24062 of 2014, who is also counsel for the applicants in recall application filed in Writ Petition No. 1286 of 1968, Shri C.K. Mishra, who has filed another recall application in Writ Petition No. 1286 of 1968 and Shri B.D. Madhayan, who was counsel for the petitioner in the aforesaid Writ Petition No. 1286 of 1968.

2. The writ petition of 2014 is directed against the order dated 21.03.2014 passed in proceedings under Rule 109-A of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, initiated to implement the final order dated 02.04.2004 passed in Writ Petition No. 1286 of 1968.

By the impugned order, the Consolidation Officer has rejected the application filed by the petitioners for stay of these proceedings under Rule 109-A. This stay was prayed for on the ground that the applicants, who are transferees pendenti lite from the respondents in Writ Petition No. 1286 of 1986, had no knowledge or information about the pendency of the aforesaid writ petition. Since they have purchased the land in question during the pendency of the writ petition without any information or intimation of the litigation, and had been duly mutated over the land in question, they were necessary parties to Writ Petition No. 1286 of 1968 and, have therefore, filed an application for recall of the final judgment passed in Writ Petition on 02.04.2004. It was also alleged in this application for stay that the petitioners came to know about the Writ Petition No. 1286 of 1986 only on receipt of notice of the proceedings under Rule 109-A.

3. The order impugned refusing to stay the proceedings under Rule 109-A had been passed on the reasoning that no order has been passed on the recall application said to have been preferred by the petitioners for recall of the order dated 02.04.2004 and, therefore, there is no justification not to proceed with its implementation.

4. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, when this writ petition came up for admission, this Court summoned the record of Writ Petition No. 1286 of 1968 wherein the petitioners have filed a recall application. Thereafter with the consent of the parties both the matters were heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.

5. In so far as the recall application filed in Writ Petition No. 1286 of 1968 is concerned, perusal of the record reveals that this writ petition was directed against the order dated 20.03.1968 passed in Revision Nos. 283 and 288 passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation, Meerut.

6. This writ petition was decided finally on 02.04.2004. By this judgment and order, the orders passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation were set aside and the judgments passed by the Consolidation Officer and the Settlement Officer, Consolidation were restored. The writ petition was thus decided against the respondents therein, who are also the vendors of the petitioners in the writ petition of 2014.

7. Learned counsel for the applicants, who have filed the recall application submitted that the final judgment in writ petition was ex parte against their vendors. This fact is mentioned in the order itself. The applicants purchased the land in question through various sale deeds executed during the period from 1990 to 2010. The recall application mentions four sale deeds dated 31.03.1990, 27.01.2000, 28.12.2007 and 20.09.2012. These sale deeds were executed by the respondent no. 5, Muneeza; respondent no. 10 Zubeda or their heirs.

8. In so far as the sale deed dated 20.09.2010 is concerned the same is said to have been executed in favour of the applicants by persons, who had earlier purchased the land from the respondent no. 10.

9. In this connection, I have carefully examined the record of Writ Petition No. 1286 of 1968. Perusal of the order-sheet of this writ petition indicates that notice of this writ petition had been served and service had been held to be sufficient upon respon