DEV KANT TRIVEDI, J. ( 1 ) APPLICANTS have moved an application under Order IX, Rule 13 (wrongly mentioned in place of Rule 9) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for recalling the order dated 20. 8. 1996 whereby the Writ Petition No. 777 of 1983 was dismissed. ( 2 ) APPLICANTS Avadhesh Kumar Pandey and three others filed a Writ Petition No. 777 of 1983 for quashing the order dated 27. 9. 1982 passed by Basic Shiksha Adhikari,. Gorakhpur, cancelling the admission of Sri Avadhesh Kumar Pandey, Sri Duryodhan Das, Sri Praslddh Yadav and Sri udai Mal Rao in B. T. C. and also for quashing the order dated 19. 10. 1983 whereby the Principal of Prem Chand Government Junior Training College. Gorakhpur, has discharged the petitioners from training. ( 3 ) BY means of an interim order dated 21. 1. 1983, the respondents were directed to permit the petitioners to attend their classes of the Second year. ( 4 ) THE respondents filed a counter-affidavit. ( 5 ) THE following averments were made in the affidavit of the Principal of Prem Chand government Junior Training College, Gorakhpur. ( 6 ) SRI Avadhesh Kumar Pandey had filed a copy of the mark-sheet of High School Examination of 1978 showing that he had passed the High School Examination in 1st division. He also filed character certificate showing that his date of birth is 1. 1. 1956. He had also filed the original mark-sheet of Intermediate Examination of 1980 and the character certificate allegedly issued from Janta Shiksha Niketan Intermediate College, Dubari. District Azamgarh. On an enquiry having been made. It transpired that Sri Avadhesh Kumar Pandey, petitioner No. 1, passed High school Examination in the year 1967 in 2nd division and his date of birth was 1. 1. 1954. The petitioner No. 1, Sri Avadhesh Kumar Pandey, had filed a forged mark-sheet of High School and intermediate Examination and had also filed a forged character certificate showing his date of birth as 1. 1. 1956 in place of 1. 1. 1954. ( 7 ) THE petitioner No. 2, Sri Duryodhan Das, son of Surya Nath, had indicated in his form that he had passed Intermediate Examination from Pandit Jawahar Lal Nehru Intermediate College, tilaura. District Gorakhpur in 1st division while on an enquiry. 1. 1956 in place of 1. 1. 1954. ( 7 ) THE petitioner No. 2, Sri Duryodhan Das, son of Surya Nath, had indicated in his form that he had passed Intermediate Examination from Pandit Jawahar Lal Nehru Intermediate College, tilaura. District Gorakhpur in 1st division while on an enquiry. It was found that the said institution was only up to High School and there was no question of his passing the Intermediate examination from the said institution. ( 8 ) THE petitioner No. 3, Sri Prasiddh Yadav, had submitted attested copy of the mark-sheet of high School Examination showing that he had passed in 1st division while on an enquiry, it was found that he had passed the said High School Examination in 2nd division. He had also filed a copy of the mark-sheet showing that he had passed Intermediate Examination in 1975 from Seth anand Ram Jaipuria Intermediate College. Anand Nagar, Gorakhpur, but on an enquiry, it was found that he had passed Intermediate Examination in 3rd division. ( 9 ) THE petitioner No. 4, Sri Udai Mal Rao, had indicated in Form that he had passed his intermediate Examination in 1979 in 1st division, while in fact he had passed the Intermediate examination in 2nd division. The petitioners were admitted in B. T. C. on the basis of false, fictitious and forged mark-sheets and certificates. They had filled in their forms in their own hand writing and signatures with a view to secure admission in B. T. C. course. ( 10 ) THIS counter-affidavit was sworn on 7. 9. 1983 annexing therewith photocopies of the admission forms and Annexures thereto. ( 11 ) IN the rejoinder-affidavit filed on 24. 10. 1995 on behalf of Duryodhan Das, Petitioner No. 2, claiming that in the application correct division, marks and years of passing of High School and intermediate Examination were given. He also claimed that he had passed High School and intermediate Examination from the Rastriya Intermediate College Balli, Nichlaul, District gorakhpur and he had passed High School Examination in 2nd division and Intermediate examination in 1st division in the year 1977 and 1979 respectively. ( 12 ) NO rejoinder-affidavit has been filed by petitioner Nos. 1. 3 and 4. He also claimed that he had passed High School and intermediate Examination from the Rastriya Intermediate College Balli, Nichlaul, District gorakhpur and he had passed High School Examination in 2nd division and Intermediate examination in 1st division in the year 1977 and 1979 respectively. ( 12 ) NO rejoinder-affidavit has been filed by petitioner Nos. 1. 3 and 4. ( 13 ) THE petitioner No. 1, Sri Awadhesh Kumar Pandey, had indicated in the writ petition that he had passed High School Examination in 1977 and Intermediate in 1979 in 2nd division. But in annexure-1 to the counter-affidavit, photocopy of the admission form, he had indicated that he had passed High School and Intermediate Examinations in 1st division and mark-sheets were also filed indicating that he had passed two examinations in 1st division in the year 1967 and 1972 respectively. A character certificate was filed which was issued from Janta Shiksha Niketan intermediate College, Dubari, District Azamgarh showing that his date of birth is 1. 1. 1956 and year of passing Intermediate Examination as 1980. ( 14 ) PETITIONER No. 2, Sri Duryodhan Das, had indicated in para 5 of the writ petition that he had passed High School and Intermediate Examinations in the year 1976 and 1978 respectively in 2nd division but in his Form Annexure A-2 he had shown that he had passed Intermediate examination in 1st division and a photostat copy of mark-sheet of Intermediate Examination. 1978, was also filed. In his rejoinder-affidavit, he again stated that he had passed Intermediate examination in 1st division thereby negativing his stand in para 5 of the writ petition wherein he had shown that he passed Intermediate Examination in 2nd division. ( 15 ) PETITIONER No. 3, Sri Prasiddh Yadav, had stated in para 5 of the writ petition that he had passed High School Examination in 1969 in 2nd division and Intermediate Examination in 3rd division in 1975. In Annexure-3 of admission form he had shown that he had passed both the examinations in 1st division and had filed copies of the mark-sheet. Page 11 of Annexure-CA. 3 shows that he had never appeared in Intermediate Examination from Sri Jagat Guru shankaracharya Vidyalaya Inter College. Mahadawal, Basti. ( 16 ) PETITIONER No. 4. In Annexure-3 of admission form he had shown that he had passed both the examinations in 1st division and had filed copies of the mark-sheet. Page 11 of Annexure-CA. 3 shows that he had never appeared in Intermediate Examination from Sri Jagat Guru shankaracharya Vidyalaya Inter College. Mahadawal, Basti. ( 16 ) PETITIONER No. 4. Sri Udai Mal Rao, also indicated in para 5 of the writ petition that he had passed High School Examination in 1977 and Intermediate Examination in 2nd division in 1979. Annexure-3 to the counter-affidavit, however, shows that he had shown in the admission form that he secured 1st division in High School and 1st division in Intermediate and mark-sheets were also filed in support of the admission form. Petitioner No. 4 also stated in the writ petition in para 5 of the writ petition that he had passed High School Examination in 1st division and intermediate Examination in 2nd division in 1977 and 1979 respectively. The Principal Janta uchchatar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Kotwa Kala (Deoria) intimated that Udai Mal Rao had passed intermediate Examination in 2nd division as is evident from page 10 of Annexure-4 of the counter-affidavit. ( 17 ) THIS writ petition came up for hearing on 20. 8. 1996. The following order was passed on the said date : "list has been revised. Neither any of the three counsel appearing for the petitioners nor any body else is present to press this petition. Otherwise also, in the opinion of the Court, instant petition has become infructuous by lapse of time. Under the circumstances, the petition is dismissed for want of prosecution. The interim order/ orders shall stand discharged. " ( 18 ) THIS order has been sought to be recalled by means of the restoration application No. 51347 of 1996. This application was moved by Sri M. C. Kandpal. This application was supported by an affidavit of Petitioner No. 2, Duryodhan Das. It was specifically averred in para 2 of the affidavit by Duryodhan Das, petitioner No. 2, that Sri H. N. Sharma, Advocate who had filed the writ petition, sent his illness slip on 20. 8. 1996 and Mr. Sheo Kumar. This application was supported by an affidavit of Petitioner No. 2, Duryodhan Das. It was specifically averred in para 2 of the affidavit by Duryodhan Das, petitioner No. 2, that Sri H. N. Sharma, Advocate who had filed the writ petition, sent his illness slip on 20. 8. 1996 and Mr. Sheo Kumar. Advocate, junior to Sri kandpal, requested the Court that the case be taken up after lunch or passed over for the day because he was busy in other Court but Honble Court has dismissed the case for want of prosecution on 20. 8. 1996. Paragraph 2 of this affidavit was sworn as true to the personal knowledge of Duryodhan Das who had been identified by Sri M. C. Kandpal, Advocate himself. ( 19 ) THE record of the writ petition, however, shows that there was no illness slip sent by Sri harsh Narain Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners. The order dated 20. 8. 1996, sought to be recalled, indicates that neither any of the three counsel appearing for the petitioners nor any body else was present to press the writ petition. Thus, the assertions made in paragraph 2 of the restoration application are absolutely incorrect. The petitioners, thus, came up with false assertions in the Restoration Application No. 51347 of 1996. ( 20 ) SUBSEQUENTLY, another affidavit was filed by Duryodhan Das, petitioner No. 2, on 3. 1. 2000 which was sworn on 24. 12. 1999 asserting therein that affidavit dated 26. 8. 1996, filed in support of Restoration Application No. 51347 of 1996 for recall of the order, was wrongly sworn on personal knowledge rather the same was based on information given to the deponent by Sri M. C. Kandpal, Advocate. The deponent without seeking the liberty of the Court proceeded to withdraw the above averments admitting that the same are not correct as is mentioned in paragraph 4 of the affidavit. Another affidavit sworn on 26. 1. 2000 by Sri Duryodhan Das, petitioner No. 2, was filed on 27. 1. 2000 again withdrawing the averments made in paragraph 2 of the affidavit filed in support of Restoration Application No. 51347 of 1996 and also the averments made in paragraph 4 of the supplementary affidavit filed in support of application dated 3. 1. 2000. 1. 2000 by Sri Duryodhan Das, petitioner No. 2, was filed on 27. 1. 2000 again withdrawing the averments made in paragraph 2 of the affidavit filed in support of Restoration Application No. 51347 of 1996 and also the averments made in paragraph 4 of the supplementary affidavit filed in support of application dated 3. 1. 2000. Again no leave was sought by the petitioner No. 2 to withdraw the averments made in paragraph 4 of the supplementary affidavit dated 24. 12. 1999 filed on 3. 1. 2000. ( 21 ) IT is really strange that the petitioner No. 2. Duryodhan Das, made an averment in paragraph 2 of the affidavit sworn on 26. 8. 1996 in support of the Civil Misc. Restoration Application No. 51347 of 1996 claiming that the contents of paragraph 2 were true to his personal knowledge and thereafter putting the blame on his counsel by swearing that paragraph 2 of the affidavit was based on information given to the deponent by Sri M. C. Kandpal, Advocate. No one can be permitted to withdraw the assertion made on oath. It appears that the petitioner No. 2 with a view to secure an order of recall put the blame on his counsel Sri M. C. Kandpal. Similarly again in his affidavit sworn on 26. 1. 2000 filed on 27. 1. 2000, the petitioner No. 2 has again tried to withdraw the averments made in paragraph 2 of the affidavit and para 4 of the supplementary affidavit dated 24. 12. 1999 only with a view to secure an order in his favour in the matter of restoration. ( 22 ) PETITIONER No. 2, Sri Duryodhan Das, had made false averments in para 2 of affidavit sworn on 26. 8. 1996 as is evident from the record of the writ petition, the order passed by this Court on 20. 8. 1996. He after admitting that this averment is false in paragraph 4 of the affidavit which was sworn on 24. 12. 1999 and thereafter with ulterior motive placed the blame on his counsel Sri m. C. Kandpal. The petitioner No. 2 tried to wriggle out his averments made in two affidavits by filing another affidavit. 8. 1996. He after admitting that this averment is false in paragraph 4 of the affidavit which was sworn on 24. 12. 1999 and thereafter with ulterior motive placed the blame on his counsel Sri m. C. Kandpal. The petitioner No. 2 tried to wriggle out his averments made in two affidavits by filing another affidavit. The petitioner No. 2, thus, apparently does not attach sanctity to oath and as such has made averments on oath giving varying statements as suits him to support the restoration application from time to time which do not inspire confidence. The petitioners have failed to make out a good case for their absence on 20. 8. 1996 when the case was called out and the order sought to be recalled was passed. ( 23 ) IT may be seen that the petition was dismissed not only for want of appearance of anybody on behalf of the petitioners but also it was observed that the Court was of the opinion that the writ petition has become infructuous by lapse of time. The petitioners had prayed for relief for cancellation of their admission which was ordered by Basic Shiksha Adhikari on 27. 9. 1982. No other relief was claimed by the petitioners. Interim order was passed on 21. 1. 1983 whereby the petitioners were permitted to attend their classes of 2nd year. According to the petitioners they were permitted to sit provisionally in the examination of 2nd year of B. T. C. course but the result of the examination was not to be declared and was to remain subject to ultimate decision of this court. It would appear that no orders were passed by this Court from 13. 4. 1983 onwards. Inspite of the fact that the petitioners were permitted to sit in the examination, the petitioners had not taken any steps to get the relief amended. The result of the petitioners has not been declared as yet though the examinations were held in the year 1983. It appears that the petitioners even after a lapse of more than 12 years did not think It fit to get the petition amended. In the circumstances, it was wholly just and expedient for the Court to come to the conclusion that the petition had become infructuous by lapse of time particularly in view of the fact that no orders were passed by the Court after 11. 4. In the circumstances, it was wholly just and expedient for the Court to come to the conclusion that the petition had become infructuous by lapse of time particularly in view of the fact that no orders were passed by the Court after 11. 4. 1983 nor the petitioner Nos. 1, 3 and 4 thought it fit to file rejoinder-affidavit to the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents on 8. 9. 1983. . As has been observed above, no orders were passed by this Court after the filling of the counter-affidavit of the respondents in favour of the petitioners. Looking into the averments of the forgery allegedly committed by the petitioners while seeking admission in B. T. C. and also looking into the fact that the petitioners allegations in paragraph 5 of the petition, even according to the own version contained in rejoinder-affidavit of Petitioner No. 2, were incorrect and also looking to the factum of expiry of more than 12 years in which the result was not declared, the Court had rightly come to the conclusion that the petitioners had lost interest in the matter and the petition became infructuous by lapse of time. ( 24 ) IN the circumstances of the case, the recall application amounts to abuse of the process of law and the petitioners are not entitled to get the order dated 20. 8. 1996 recalled. The application is therefore, rejected. ( 25 ) IN view of the references made herein before regarding the averments made by the petitioners. It seems expedient that notice be issued to the petitioner No. 2, Sri Duryodhan Das, to show cause as to why the action be not taken against him firstly, making wrong averments in para 5 of the writ petition and thereafter making wrong averments in paragraph 2 of the affidavit dated 26. 8. 1996 in support of the recall/restoration application. Let notice be issued accordingly. The cause will be shown by the petitioner No. 2, Sri Duryodhan Das, be appearing in person on 30. 10. 2000.