# Girija Prasad Ojha v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 12 ILRA 754
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-12-19
- **Case number:** Writ -C No. 1000394 of 2004
- **Bench:** Alok Mathur
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/girija-prasad-ojha-v-state-of-u-p-ors-51349
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

A. Civil Law-Constitution of India,1950Article 226- Zamindari Abolition Rules -
Section 285(1)-Transfer of Property ActSection 60The petitioner took a loan , due
to non-repayment the bank issued a
recovery
certificate-later
the
bank
proceeded
with
an
auction
of
the
petitioner's mortgaged agricultural land ,
the land was auctioned for Rs. 52000/-the
petitioner objected to the auction u/s
285(1) of the Zamindari Abolition Rules
before the divisional commissioner-the
petitioner
was
granted
multiple
opportunities but failed to deposit the full
amount within stipulated time-the auction
was conducted lawfully and the sale deed
was executed in favor of respondent no.5right of redemption exists until the sale
deed is executed-the court held that since
the sale deed had already been executed
in favour of respondent no 5 the petitioner
lost his right to redeem the property.(Para
1 to 23)

The writ petition is dismissed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

754 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
remedies in force at the time of the filing of
the Suit were to be preserved to the parties
till the rest of the career of the Suit. The
Appeal or a remedy to go to higher Court
accrues to a litigant on the very date the lis
commences and although it may be actually
exercised when the adverse judgment is
pronounced such right is to be governed by the
law prevailing at the date of the institution of
the Suit. In the instant case, since all remedies
available at the time of the notification of the
U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, had to continue, the
remedy of Revision would also continue, even
if it was not an inherent right which had
accrued to the litigant as would be the case
with an appeal.

15. Any repealing law which repeals
an earlier law shall not affect the remedies
available to a party which were available to the
party on the date when the suit was filed. It
would continue to be in existence for the
litigant just as it was available to him or her on
the date of the filing the lis. A vested right to
go to a higher Court can be taken away by a
subsequent enactment if the latter expressly
provides or a bare reading of it shows that the
right of going to a higher Court as per the
earlier law had been by a necessary
intendment taken away.

16. In the case at hand, we find that
not only by the repealing act the remedies of
going to a higher Court had not been taken
away but in fact they had been continued by
the provisions of the U.P. Revenue Code,
2006, as is contained under section 230(2)(d)
of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. The section
231 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 only
states that all the cases pending before the
Revenue Courts immediately before the
commencement of the U.P. Revenue Code,
2006 whether any case, Appeal, Revision or
otherwise shall be decided in accordance with
the provisions of appropriate law which would
have been applicable, as if the U.P. Revenue
Code, 2006 had not been passed. Hence,
section 231 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006,
was a provision which only clarifies that a
remedy which was available at the time when
the lis was filed and had been availed would
be decided by the provisions of the Old Act.
There is no provision in the new Act which
after repealing the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950,
snatches from a litigant the right of further
remedies as were provided under the U.P.
Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950, and hence we are
answering the reference by observing that the
Revision which was filed by the petitioner
could have been filed and there was no
provision in the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006,
which had expressly taken away the vested
right of having a remedy to go to a higher
Court by means of a Revision.

17. The reference is accordingly,
answered. It may be placed before Court
which is now seized with the various petitions
in which the reference was made.

18. The interim order however,
granted earlier, shall continue till the petitions
are decided.
----------
(2024) 12 ILRA 754
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 19.12.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J.

Writ -C No. 1000394 of 2004

Girija Prasad Ojha ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
S.M. Waseem, Diwakar Pratap Pandey, I.M.
Pandey, Ist, Kripa Shankar Shukla, Rameshwar
12 All. Girija Prasad Ojha Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
755
Tiwari, S.M. Waseem, Smt. Usha Tiwari, Vidya
Bhushan Pandey

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., A. Kumar, Mayank Pathak, Ravi Shanker
Mishra, S.N. Goshwami, Sharad Bhatnagar

A. Civil Law-Constitution of India,1950Article 226- Zamindari Abolition Rules -
Section 285(1)-Transfer of Property ActSection 60The petitioner took a loan , due
to non-repayment the bank issued a
recovery
certificate-later
the
bank
proceeded
with
an
auction
of
the
petitioner's mortgaged agricultural land ,
the land was auctioned for Rs. 52000/-the
petitioner objected to the auction u/s
285(1) of the Zamindari Abolition Rules
before the divisional commissioner-the
petitioner
was
granted
multiple
opportunities but failed to deposit the full
amount within stipulated time-the auction
was conducted lawfully and the sale deed
was executed in favor of respondent no.5right of redemption exists until the sale
deed is executed-the court held that since
the sale deed had already been executed
in favour of respondent no 5 the petitioner
lost his right to redeem the property.(Para
1 to 23)

The writ petition is dismissed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

1. Surendra Pal Singh Vs Vijaya Bank, Civil
Appeal No. 6843 of 2023

2. Narandas Karsondas Vs S.A. Kamtam (1976)
CJ SC 287

(Delivered by Hon'ble Alok Mathur, J.)

C. M. Application dated 17.12.2024
for correction of order dated 30.1.2024.

1. Heard learned counsel for the
parties.

2. The cause shown is sufficient.
The application is allowed.
3. Order dated 30.1.2024 is
corrected. The corrected order is as under:-

1. Heard Sri I. M. Pandey, learned
counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing
counsel for respondent No.s 1, 3 and 4 and
Sri Mayank Pathak for respondent No.2-
Bank.

2. By means of the present writ
petition the petitioner has challenged the
auction proceedings which has culminated
into confirmation of the auction by the
order of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil
Milkipur, Faizabad.

3. The facts in brief are that the
petitioner is a proprietor of a business firm,
namely Rahul Fertilizers. He had taken a loan
of Rs.10,000/- on 31.10.1985 from Punjab
National Bank, Branch, Kumarganj, District
Faizabad for the purpose of fertilizer business .
The said loan was enhanced to Rs.20,000/- on
23.9.1987. The petitioner could not repay the
said loan and consequently the respondentbank initiated recovery proceedings against the
petitioner by issuance of recovery certificate
on 7.3.1994. Despite issuance of the recovery
certificate the outstanding amount of loan was
not repaid consequently the bank proceeded to
auction the mortgaged property by sale
proclamation on 23.2.1999
against
the
petitioner of the agricultural loan exiting on
khata No.342, gata No.s 219 A/0-18-02,
98/1/0-9-10, 207/0-13-0, 219 Ba/1-10-14, 272
Kha/1-12-0, 280/0-17-5, 281/0-1-10
and
288/0-7-0 which land was mortgaged to secure
the loan obtained by the petitioner. The auction
proceedings were held on 22.3.1999 and the
agricultural land of the petitioner was
auctioned for an amount of Rs.52,000/- in
favour of respondent No.5.

4. Bring aggrieved by the auction
the petitioner preferred objections under
756 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Sections 285 (1) of Z.A. Rules before the
Divisional Commissioner, Faizabad on
5.4.1999. The Divisional Commissioner on
receiving
the
said
objections
also
considered the fact that the petitioners was
ready and willing to repay the said loan
gave him time by means of order dated
7.5.2003 to deposit the entire outstanding
amount of loan with the bank and informed
the petitioner that in case he deposits the
said amount with the bank, the said
auctions
proceedings
would
not
be
confirmed and the auction will be set aside.

5. It seems that the petitioner could
not deposit the said amount by the date
fixed i.e. 7.6.2003 but in the meantime the
petitioner moved another application for
extension of time for depositing the
outstanding
amount
of
loan.
The
application of the petitioner was favorably
considered by learned Commissioner who
by means of his order dated 5.6.2003 gave
further thirty days' time to the petitioner to
deposit the said amount by 7.7.2003. Even
during the extended time period the
outstanding amount was not deposited by
the petitioner and in these circumstances
the petitioner approached this Court by
filing writ petition bearing writ petition
No.2127 (M/S) of 2003. This Court by
means of order dated 4.7.2003 had
disposed of the said writ petition recording
that the petitioner had filed his objections
under Section 285 (1) of Z.A. Rules and he
was granted time to deposit the outstanding
amount of loan by 7.6.2003. It was further
observed that the petitioner could not
deposit the said amount due to financial
constraints but is ready and willing to
deposit the entire amount and consequently
the order of the Commissioner, Faizabad
Division, Faizabad dated 7.5.2003 was
modified to the extent that the petitioner
may deposit Rs.20,000/- with the bank
before 31.7.2003 and the remaining amount
before 30th September, 2003.

6. It is in compliance of the order
of this Court dated 4.7.2003 which had
modified the order of the Commissioner
dated 7.5.2003 the petitioner deposited an
amount of Rs.20,000/- on 30.7.2003 but it
seems that he could not deposit the
remaining amount and as per the impugned
order a report was called from the bank
which also confirmed that the petitioner
had not deposited the remaining amount as
directed by the High Court in their letter
dated 30.10.2003. The respondent on being
made aware of the fact that even the order
of High Court had not been complied and
the petitioner had not deposited the
remaining amount, proceeded to confirm
the auction.

7. After confirmation of the
auction, a sale certificate was issued in
favour of respondent No.5 on 30.1.2004
and the property was also registered in
favour of respondent No.5 on 7.1.2004 as
per the averments made by the petitioner
himself in the writ petition. It is in
aforesaid circumstances that present writ
petition has been filed assailing the order
dated 31.12.2003 passed by Commissioner,
Faizabad Mandal, Faizabad confirming the
auction. The petitioner has also prayed for a
direction to the respondents not to give
effect to the auction proceedings and not to
mutate the said land in favour of
respondent No.5.

8. Learned counsel for the
petitioner while assailing the order dated
31.12.2003 has submitted that the petitioner
has full right for redeeming the mortgage
and even High Court had recognized the
right of redemption in as much as this
Court had directed the bank to accept
12 All. Girija Prasad Ojha Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
757
Rs.20,000/-
by
31.7.2003
and
the
remaining amount before 30.9.2003 and
consequently the auction proceedings could
not have been confirmed in case the
petitioner had complied with the directions
of this Court. He has further submitted that
in pursuance of the directions of this court
admittedly he had deposited Rs.20,000/- on
30.7.2003. He has further submitted that he
had further deposited Rs.2500/- with the
respondent bank. It is only subsequently
that he was made aware of the fact that the
cheque was dishonored on account of
insufficiency of funds and on coming to
know about the dishonoring of the cheque
he had deposited Rs.9500/- in cash on
30.10.2003. He has further submitted that
this is admitted fact that the petitioner on
being aware of dishohouring of the cheque
had deposited the remaining amount in
cash and, therefore, it is submitted that the
benefit of the same should be given to the
petitioner and accordingly submits that his
right of redemption was not extinguished
on non compliance of the directions of this
Court dated 4.7.2003. Lastly, he has also
taken a plea that the said loan was
commercial loan and the proceedings for
recovery of the commercial loan could not
have been made as arrears of land revenue
as the said proceedings could be taken only
with regard to agricultural loan and submits
that
accordingly
the
entire
recovery
proceedings are without jurisdiction and is
liable to be set aside.

9. It is noticed that the said plea
has neither been taken before any of the
authorities below nor in the writ petition
and only averment has been made in para 9
of the supplementary affidavit filed by the
petitioner on 23.1.2024. Learned counsel
for the bank has, on the other hand,
submitted that according to the recovery
certificate the loan has been shown to be
agricultural loan and in any view of the
matter this issue has not been raised before
any authority and consequently cannot be
permitted to raise the same by oral
submissions for the first time in writ
proceedings.

10. In support of his submissions,
learned counsel for the petitioner has relied
upon the judgment of Supreme Court in the
case of Surendra Pal Singh Vs. Vijaya
Bank passed in Civil Appeal No.6843 of
2023 as well as Narandas Karsondas Vs.
S.A. Kamtam, 1976 CJ (SC) 287 to
canvass his plea that his right to redemption
of the mortgaged property existed even
subsequent to confirmation of the auction
and consequently he may be permitted to
deposit the outstanding amount of loan and
the impugned orders may be set aside
directing the respondents to hand over the
property back to the petitioner.

11. Learned counsel for the
respondents, on the other hand, have
vehemently opposed the writ petition. It has
been
submitted
that
the
recovery
proceedings were initiated against the
petitioner after he failed to repay the loan
in terms of the agreement entered into
between the petitioner and the respondent.
It was stated that repeated opportunities
were given to the petitioner to repay the
outstanding amount of loan but despite the
said notice the loan was not repaid and
consequently the mortgaged property was
auctioned by the respondent-bank. It has
been submitted that the petitioner was fully
aware of the auction proceedings in as
much as ZA Form 74A was issued to the
petitioner and according to the said
provisions the petitioner was fully aware of
the auction proceedings. The auction
proceedings settled in favour of respondent
758 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
No.5 who was the highest bidder for an
amount of Rs.52,000/-.

12. There is no dispute with regard
to the fact that the entire amount of auction
money has been tendered by respondent
No.5. Prior to confirmation of the sale the
petitioner had submitted his objections. It is
stated that it is only after considering the
objections filed by the petitioner that he
was further granted time to redeem the said
mortgage and to repay the entire amount of
loan by 7.6.2003. At the behest of the
petitioner the said period was extended till
7.7.2003 and despite expiry of the time
period the said loan was not repaid. Even
after that time was extended by this Court
and even the directions of this Court was
not complied by the petitioner.

13. It is stated that even the
directions of this Court have not been
complied and the Commissioner in these
circumstances had no other option but to
confirm the auction and even it has been
stated that after confirmation of the auction
the sale certificate was issued and the
property has been registered in favour of
respondent No.5. It has further been stated
that this fact has been mentioned by the
petitioner himself that the sale certificate
has been issued in favour of respondent
No.5 and the property has also been
registered in his favour on 7.1.2004 i.e.
much prior to filing of the present petition
and still the petitioner has failed to assail
the sale certificate as well as sale deed
issued in favour of respondent No.5.

14. It is stated that the present writ
petition has been rendered infructuous from
the start in as much as proper prayer has not
been made for setting aside the sale certificate
and sale deed and setting aside the impugned
orders will not have any effect upon the
validity of the sale deed issued in favour of
respondent No.5. Accordingly, he submits
that proper prayer has not been made by the
petitioner and accordingly the relief as sought
by him cannot be granted.

15. I have heard learned counsel for
the petitioner and perused the records.

16. In light of the aforesaid narration
of facts the question which arises for
determination by this Court was as to whether
right of redemption existing in favour of the
petitioner, who had mortgages his property to
secure the agricultural loan subsists even after
the confirmation of the auction and after the
sale deed has been registered in favour of
successful
bidder/auction
purchaser
i.e.
respondent No.5.

17. According to Section 60 of the
Transfer
of
Properties
Act,
right
of
redemption exists with the mortgagee till
such
time
the
mortgage
has
been
extinguished by the act of either of the
parties. In the present case, in exercise of his
right to redemption the Commissioner,
Faizabad Division, at the outset, before
confirming the said auction had given time to
the petitioner till 7.6.2003 to repay the said
loan. Undoubtedly there is no dispute with
regard to the fact that even subsequent to the
auction which was settled in favour of
respondent No.5 existence of the right of
redemption in favour of the petitioner was
duly recognized by the confirming authority.
Even at the behest of the petitioner the said
time period was extended by one month and
he was further given time till 3.7.2003 to
repay the outstanding amount of loan.

18. This right vested in the
petitioner of redemption was further
recognized by this Court when this Court
had passed order on 4.7.2003 where the
12 All. Girija Prasad Ojha Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
759
petitioner was further granted till 30th
September, 2003. This Court while passing
the order dated 4.7.2003 had given the
petitioner time till 30.7.2003 to deposit the
amount of Rs.20,000/- and again granted
time
till
30.9.2003.
Accordingly
undoubtedly the petitioner even in the
extended time provided by this Court till
30th September to repay the said loan.
There is no dispute that till 30.9.2003 the
amount of outstanding loan was not
deposited by the petitioner. Considering the
arguments raised by the petitioner that he
had deposited Rs.20,000/- on 30.7.2003 i.e.
within the time provided by this Court.
While remaining amount of Rs.12500/- was
deposited by the petitioner through cheque
which had bounced. The reason for
bouncing of cheque is insufficiency of
funds. Considering the fact that till
conclusion of auction the full outstanding
amount of loan was not credited in the bank
account and the bouncing of the cheque on
account of insufficiency of funds cannot be
taken as an act of redemption of the loan by
the petitioner. Even subsequently against
the outstanding amount of Rs.12500/- the
petitioner had deposited only Rs.9500/- on
30.10.2003.

19. This Court has noticed that
even the amount do not match with the
amount of cheque deposited previously by
the petitioner i.e. 30.10.2003 but according
to the time prescribed by this Court even if
the petitioner had come to know about
bouncing of the cheque subsequent to
30.10.2003 then he could have moved
appropriate application before this Court in
writ petition No.2127 (M/S) of 2003
seeking time for depositing the outstanding
amount in peculiar circumstances of the
present case and could also demonstrate
before this Court that the petitioner had no
knowledge that the cheque had bounced.
Unfortunately, no such application was
made by the petitioner and the directions of
this Court for depositing the outstanding
loan till 30.10.2003 remained unchanged
and unaltered. It is in these circumstances,
this Court is of the considered opinion that
the outstanding loan amount was not repaid
by the petitioner within the time prescribed
despite the fact that repeated extensions
were given by the authorities themselves
and also by this Court. Accordingly, the
auction concluded and the property was
duly registered in the name of respondent
No.5-the auction purchaser. The act of
registration of the property in favour of
respondent No.5 had extinguished the right
vested with the petitioner to redeem the
said loan.

20. We have also considered the
judgments relied upon by the petitioner. In
the case of Surinder Pal Singh Vs. Vijaya
Bank and others, passed in Civil Appeal
No.6843 of 20023 the question that was
considered was of provisions of Section 13
(8) of Securitization and Reconstruction of
Financial Assets and Enforcement of
Securities Interest Act, 2002 (in short
SARFAESI Act) with regard to repayment
of loan taken by the borrower from the
banks and the unamended provisions of
Section 13 (8) vested the right with the
borrower to redeem the loan prior to
issuance
of
the
sale
certificate
but
subsequently amendment of Section 13(8)
of SARFAESI Act right of redemption was
limited till the date of issuance of
advertisement for the said auction. In light
of the above, Supreme Court has held that
right of redemption in a matter where the
SARFAESI Act is applicable right of
redemption has been extinguished on the
issuance of advertisement for auction. The
said judgment concerns the SARFAESI Act
which are not applicable in the facts of the
760 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
present case and consequently does not
apply in the present case.

21. In the case of Narandas
Karsondas Vs. SSA Kamta, 1976 CJ (SC)
287, Supreme Court while explaining the
provisions of Section 60 of Transfer of
Properties Act have held in paragraphs 34
and 35 as under:-

"34.
The
right
of
redemption which is embodied in
section 60 of the Transfer of
Property Act is available to the
Mortga- gor unless it has been
extinguished by the Act of parties.
The combined effect of section 54
of the Transfer of Property Act and
section
17
of
the
Indian
Registration Act is that a contract
for sale in respect of immovable
property of the value of more than
one
hundred
rupees
without
registration cannot extinguish the
equity of redemption. In India it
isonly
on
execution
of
the
conveyance and registration of
transfer of the mortgagor?s interest
by registered instrument that the
mortgagor?s right of redemption
will
be
extinguished.
The
conferment of power to sell without
intervention of the Court in a
Mortgage Deed by itself will not
deprive the mortgagor of his right
to redemption. The extinction of the
right of redemption has to be
subsequent to the deed conferring
such
power.
The
right
of
redemption is not extinguished at
the expiry of the period. The equity
of redemption is not extinguished
by mere contract for sale.
35. The mortgagor s right
to redeem will survive until there
has been completion of sale by the
mortagee by a registered deed. In
England a sale of property takes
place by agreement but it is not so
in our country. The power to sell
shall not be exercised unless and
until notice in writing requiring
payment of the principal money has
been served on the mortgagor.
Further
section
69(3)
of
the
Transfer of Property Act shows that
when a sale has been made in
professed exercise of such a power,
the title of the purchaser shall not
be impeachable on the ground that
no case had arisen to authorise the
sale. Therefore, until the sale is
complete
by
registration
the
mortgagor does not lose right of
redemption."

22. In the aforesaid judgment
Supreme Court has held that right of
redemption would only exist till the date when
sale is complete. In the present case as we
have already noticed the sale deed was
registered in favour of respondent No.5 on
7.1.2004 and consequently even as per the
judgment of Supreme Court the right of
redemption if any in favour of the petitioner
stand extinguished on the date of the said
auction. There is no law or rule which has
been demonstrated by the petitioner to indicate
that right of redemption vested even after
execution of sale deed and also considering the
fact that neither the sale deed nor the sale
certificate issued in favour of respondent No.5
has been challenged in the present proceedings
accordingly there is no infirmity in the order
passed by Commissioner confirming the
auction in favour of respondent No.5.

23. For the aforesaid reasons, there
is no merit in the writ petition which is
accordingly dismissed.
12 All. Ghanshyam Das Agarwal Vs. Anoop Kumar & Ors.
761
----------
(2024) 12 ILRA 761
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 23.11.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE NEERAJ TIWARI, J.

Matters Under Article 227 No. 2370 of 2023

Ghanshyam Das Agarwal ...Petitioner
Versus
Anoop Kumar & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Kaushalendra Nath Singh, Tarun Varma

Counsel for the Respondents:
Bhanu Pratap Singh, Surendra Singh

Civil Law-The Code of Civil Procedure,
1980-Order 1 Rule 8---Filing of written
St.ment after a period of 90 days- Limitation
under Order 8 Rule 1 CPC cannot be extended
in routine manner and shall only be done in
exceptional case and further in such cases, it is
required on the part of Court to give reasons for
condoning the delay--- Once, it is undisputed
that publication has been made and application
has been filed before the Trial Court, in all
eventuality, notice is deemed to be served after
90 days from the date of submission of
application along with publication before the
Trial Court. Therefore, notice is sufficient---
Impugned orders set aside.

Petition allowed. (E-15)

List of Cases cited:

1. Ramesh Flowers Pvt. Ltd.Vs Mr. Sumit Srimal;
C.R.P. (MD) Nos. 1853 & 1854 of 2024

2. Atcom Technologies Ltd. Vs Y.A. Chunawala
& Co.; (2018) 6 Supreme Court Cases 639

3. Desh Raj Vs Balkishan (dead) Through
Proposed Legal Representative Ms. Rohini;
(2020) 2 Supreme Court Cases 708.
(Delivered by Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari, J.)

1. Heard Sri Tarun Varma along with
Sri Ridham Gupta, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Sri Ashok Malviya, advocate
holding brief of Sri Bhanu Pratap Singh,
learned counsel for the respondents.

2. Present petition has been filed with
following prayer;

"Issue writ, order or direction in
the nature calling for the record of the case
and quashing the orders dated 13.09.2022
and 17.01.2023."

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that petitioner has filed Suit No.
363 of 2007 impleading the respondent nos.
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 & 7 as defendant nos. 1, 2, 3,
4, 5, 6 & 7 respectively. In the said suit,
notice
was
issued
on
17.01.2018.
Defendant no. 3 i.e. respondent no. 7, who
is brother of other respondents after
receiving
notice,
has
filed
written
submission
along
with
delay
and
considering the same in accordance with
under Order 8 Rule 1 CPC, Court vide
order dated 10.09.2021 has rejected the
same.

4. He next submitted that notices were
not served upon defendant nos. 2, 4, 5, 6 &
7, therefore, petitioner/plaintiff has moved
application 17Ga/18Ga for publication of
summon in newspaper, which was allowed
vide order dated 23.01.2018. Pursuant to
that publication was made in newspaper on
07.02.2018
and
submitted
copy
of
newspaper along with application 19Ka2
before the Trial Court on 25.01.2018. After
publication, for the first time, defendant
nos. 2 4, 5, 6 & 7 have filed application No.
47C dated 2.7.2022 along with affidavit on
the ground that application 19Ka2 of the