The court ruled that a party's knowledge of an order and failure to justify significant delays in appeals precludes the recall of orders passed on merits.

JUDGMENT

Saurabh Lavania, J.

Rejoinder affidavit filed today, is taken on record.

2. Heard Sri. Jai Shanker Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. Hemant Kumar Pandey, learned State Counsel and Sri. P.V.Chaudhary, learned counsel for the opposite party.

3. Earlier in the present petition, an application for recall was allowed by this Court vide order dated 08.03.2018, whereby the final order 07.05.1982 was recalled. The order dated 08.03.2018 reads as under:-

"Today there is illness slip of Shri. J.C. Srivastava, one of the learned counsel for the petitioner. From the order sheet it transpires that the application of the respondents registered as C.M. Application No.12287 of 1982 dated 26.11.1982 is pending for consideration, whereby the respondents had prayed for recalling the order dated 7.5.1982, said to have been passed on an alleged compromise which infact was based upon a forged Vakalatnama and that the respondents had never put any signatures either on the Vakalatnama or on the compromise.

Further, C.M. Application No.12288 of 1982 filed by the respondents is for placing the original record of this petition in a sealed cover and in safe custody. On the said application an order was passed on 26.11.1982 whereby the operation of the order dated 7.5.1982 was stayed and further direction was issued to keep the original file, excluding the present application, in a sealed cover while the present application would be placed before the Court in open cover.

According to learned counsel for the respondents, Shri. A.S. Chaudhary, no objections or counter affidavit has been filed in response to the aforesaid applications for recalling the order dated 7.5.1982. He further submits that the only effort of the counsel for the petitioner was to delay the matter somehow or the other.

A perusal of the order sheet also indicates that the matter has been adjourned on dozens of occasions on the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner or on his illness slip. The order sheet further indicates that on 8.2.2018 the matter was directed to be listed peremptorily on 15.2.2018 and then on 15.2.2018 the matter was adjourned for 22.2.2018, however the case could not be taken up on the said date.

Today, when the matter is listed, again Shri. J.C. Srivastava has sent his illness slip. It is high time that such matter should be dealt with ignoring the illness slip of the counsel for the parties. Even otherwise, the conduct of the counsel for the petitioner in getting this matter adjourned and further no objections/counter affidavit having been filed to the recall application, prima facie indicates that the petitioner is apprehensive of any adverse orders being passed against them, as apparently the order dated 7.5.1982 passed on the basis of a compromise is not a correct order, as the compromise actually was never entered into by the genuine respondents.

For the reasons recorded above, the C.M. Application No.12287 of 1982 is allowed and the order dated 7.5.1982 is recalled.

The petition is restored to it's original number. The petition may be listed for hearing in the next cause list or whenever the Bench is available and shall be listed peremptorily. The sealed cover containing the record of the Writ Petition shall now be placed along with this file. "

4. By means of the present petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 31.07.1976, 09.12.1976 and 18.12.1980 passed by opposite party no.1/Deputy Director of Consolidation, Faizabad now Ayodhya (in short 'DDC').

5. Brief facts of the case, are to the effect that Assistant Consolidation Officer (in short 'ACO') concerned, based upon the compromise decided the share of original petitioner namely Rati Pal and opposite party no.2/Kamla Prasad, real brother of the petitioner, vide order dated 05.07.1969 passed in Case No. 825 of 1969.

6. It would be apt to indicate that dispute relates to Khata No. 275 Chak No. 85 and according to order of ACO dated 05.07.1969, both the parties, b