G. C. DE, J. ( 1 ) -THIS hearing arose out of a petition filed by the respondent/judgment-debtor praying for recalling of the judgment and decree dated 27. 4. 2000 passed by this Court in two Second Appeals No. 314 of 1999 and 220 of 1998 which were heard analogously. ( 2 ) IT is alleged in the petition that notices of both the appeals were not served on the present petitioner who figures as respondent No. 2 in Second Appeal No. 220 of 1998 and respondent No. 1 in Second Appeal No. 314 of 1999. It is also alleged that by practising fraud upon the Court both the appeals were listed for final hearing. ( 3 ) THE appellant in both the appeals and the respondent No. 1 in Second Appeal No. 220 of 1998 and the respondent No. 2 in Second Appeal No. 314 of 1999 appeared and contested the hearing after filing separate Affidavit-in-Opposition pointing out that notice were duly served in accordance with law. ( 4 ) SUBSEQUENTLY Affidavit-in-Reply and other supplementary affidavits were also filed in support of the respective contentions made in the original affidavits. ( 5 ) IN course of hearing of this appeal it was clarified by the learned counsel for the present petitioner that the present petition was filed under the provision of order 41 Rule 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure. So the point for consideration is whether the present petitioner respondent has been able to satisfy this Court that the notice was not duly served or that he was prevented by sufficient cause from appearing when the appeal was called on for hearing. In fact, the judgment passed by this Court on 27. 4. 2000 has been termed as ex parte and the present petitioner wants a re-hearing of the appeal mainly on the ground that the notice was not duly served. There is nothing on record to show that the present petitioner was prevented by any other sufficient cause from appearance when the appeal was called on for hearing. ( 6 ) FROM the record of both the appeals, it transpires that notices were served upon both the respondents and one of them appeared and contested the appeal. As regards the present petitioner notices were sent under Registered Post with AD and also through the process of the Court. ( 6 ) FROM the record of both the appeals, it transpires that notices were served upon both the respondents and one of them appeared and contested the appeal. As regards the present petitioner notices were sent under Registered Post with AD and also through the process of the Court. The notice sent under Registered Post was returned with the endorsement "not claimed". From the returned envelope it appeared that the registered notice sent on 8. 9. 98 was attempted to be served on 11. 9. 98 and 12. 9. 98 but as the present petitioner was not available, a notice under the postal rules was served on the petitioner on 15. 9. 98 for receiving the registered envelope. But as none turned up, it was returned with the postal endorsement "unclaimed". It also transpires that the notice sent through Court was served by affixing on the suit property as the present petitioner refused to accept the same. ( 7 ) IN the present petition, it is nowhere indicated that the postal peon did not visit on 11. 9. 98 and 12. 9. 98, nor there is any averment that no notice by the postal authorities was given on 15. 9. 98. ( 8 ) IN this connection, it is to be noted from the affidavit sworn by the appellant decree holder that at the time of affixing the notice in presence of the present petitioner photographs were taken and the said photographs along with the negatives were annexed to the affidavit. But the present petitioner on the basis of the Affidavit-in-Reply stated that as those were affixed forcibly, a G. D. Entry was made to the local police station. The learned counsel for the present petitioner tried to argue that the said photographs were taken long after the service of the notice. But there is no material before this Court to show that it was served long after the filing of the present petition. On the other hand, the report of the process server written on 24. 3. 2000 indicates that the notice was duly served following the provisions of Order 5 Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code. It is not specifically stated on the affidavit sworn by the present petitioner that actually no notice was served by hanging on 24. 3. 2000. On the other hand, the report of the process server written on 24. 3. 2000 indicates that the notice was duly served following the provisions of Order 5 Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code. It is not specifically stated on the affidavit sworn by the present petitioner that actually no notice was served by hanging on 24. 3. 2000. So the materials on record indicate that notices were duly served and endorsement of due service was affixed on the record. ( 9 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner, however, tried to argue that both the appeals were placed in the hearing list without following the Appellate Side Rules and that those were surreptitiously included in the list. But there is nothing to indicate that both the appeals were placed in the hearing list by the registry without following the procedure of this Court. On the other hand, it appears from order dated 27. 11. 98 passed by Bhaskar Bhattacharyya, J. that on the prayer of the appellant, a direction was issued for expeditious hearing of the appeal. In fact this order was complied with by placing both the appeals in the hearing list. I do not find any illegality in this regard. ( 10 ) THE next argument of the learned counsel for the present petitioner is that the present petitioner decree holder is a notorious person and he in collusion with the other respondents who happens to be his father misled the Court as regards contest by the respondents. But the record itself indicates that the Court was aware of the position and hence, before final hearing of this matter for abundant precaution another notice was sent to the present petitioner for service through Court and it is already stated above that the said notice was returned with the report of the process server that it was served under Order 5 Rule 17 of the Code. Thereafter both the appeals were placed for final disposal. In fact, both the appeals were finally heard and there after the judgment was delivered on 27. 4. 2000. So, I do not find any illegality in this regard. In this connection, the learned counsel for the appellant pointed out the annexure 'b' to the affidavit of the appellant sworn on 14. 9. 2000 and argued that the present petitioner is in the habit of telling lies. 4. 2000. So, I do not find any illegality in this regard. In this connection, the learned counsel for the appellant pointed out the annexure 'b' to the affidavit of the appellant sworn on 14. 9. 2000 and argued that the present petitioner is in the habit of telling lies. In the sixth line of annexure 'b' which is a letter from the present petitioner to the Manager of the Calcutta Electric Supply Corporation, the present petitioner admitted that he suppressed the actual fact before the High Court. I deem it proper to quote that sentence : "i suppressed the actual fact before the Justice of Calcutta High Court and also I suppressed you the actual fact". The learned counsel further pointed out the paragraph 7 of the annexure 'a' to the affidavit dated 10. 7. 2000 which was filed before the executing Court by the present petitioner in order to show that the present petitioner made a false statement before the executing Court that in this second appeal, he obtained a stay order, though in fact, no such stay order was ever passed in connection with this petition. The learned counsel for the appellant also drew the attention to the photographs annexed to the affidavit of the appellant sworn on 25. 9. 2000 to show that the notice was hanging in front of the sweet-meat shop of the present petitioner and that the present petitioner was standing in front of that shop. In pointing all these matters the learned counsel for the appellant argued that the present petitioner is a person who is habituated in suppressing facts and hence no reliance should be placed on his averments that notices were not served. ( 11 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant further argued that the present petitioner being aware of the fate of both the second appeals opted not to appear intentionally for the purpose of killing time in the attempt of which he is successful as on the plea of non-service of the notice he has been successful in stalling the execution proceeding for about eight months. It was pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that one suit filed by the plaintiff-appellant was dismissed in the first appeal, and the other suit filed by the present petitioner was decreed by the first appellate Court. It was pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that one suit filed by the plaintiff-appellant was dismissed in the first appeal, and the other suit filed by the present petitioner was decreed by the first appellate Court. So it was expected that a caveat was lodged by him for protecting the decree passed in his favour in the suit filed by him against the present appellant. But no caveat was filed with a definite purpose of attacking the judgment and decree to be passed in the second appeal on the plea of non-service. It is argued that such type of delatory tactics are generally taken by the parties having a weak case. Without making any comment on such submission, it can simply be said that no caveat was lodged by the present petitioner and that in spite of due service of notices, he did not appear when both the appeals were taken up for hearing. Lastly the learned counsel for the petitioner pointing out three copies of order dated 5. 5. 97, 9. 7. 97 and 16. 7. 97 passed by the District Judge, Alipore in Title Appeal No. 101 of 1997 which was presided over by me (copies of those orders are made annexures to the supplementary affidavit sworn by the present petitioner on 10. 11. 2000) argued that as those orders were passed by me sitting as the District Judge in the said first appeals, these second Appeals should not have taken for hearing by this Court. The learned counsel for the respondent on this score pointed out that those three orders were routine orders passed after the filing of the appeals before the District Judge, and for calling of the lower Court records and ultimately those were transferred to the Court of Special Judge, E. C. Act and Additional District Judge, Alipore for disposal. So it is argued that excepting signing the routine orders this Court had no occasion to go into the merits of the appeal or to deal with the matter specially in view of the fact that in first appeals there is no admission hearing. After a perusal of the orders, it is clear that those are mere routine orders written by the office and signed by the District Judge and there was no occasion to hear anything on merits or to deal with the matter on merits or otherwise. After a perusal of the orders, it is clear that those are mere routine orders written by the office and signed by the District Judge and there was no occasion to hear anything on merits or to deal with the matter on merits or otherwise. So considering this aspect, it cannot be said that this Court should not have heard the second appeals. ( 12 ) FROM the materials on record I am satisfied that the petitioner has failed to prove that no notice was served upon him or that he was prevented by sufficient cause from appearance when the appeal was taken up for hearing. So I do not find any reason to recall the judgment dated 27. 4. 2000 passed after hearing the argument of the present appellant and one of the respondents. The petition is accordingly rejected. Parties do bear their own cost of this hearing. Lower Court record, if not yet despatched, be sent down forthwith. Urgent xerox certified copies, if applied for, may be delivered expeditiously on usual terms. Petition rejected.