JUDGMENT : Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. 1. All these writ petitions pertain to order dated 16.10.2014, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Vikas Nagar, passed separately in four different Civil Appeals being Civil Appeal No.72 of 2012, Civil Appeal No.71 of 2012, Civil Appeal No.69 of 2012 and Civil Appeal No.70 of 2012, respectively. 2. Since the issues, factual as well as legal, are same, these writ petitions are being decided together after having heard at some length the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent no.1. 3. However, for convenience the facts being mentioned relate to Writ Petition (M/S) No.53 of 2015. Vide the impugned order in question dated 16.10.2014 the application of one of the respondents in appeal i.e. Mr. Sanjeev Verma who is the petitioner before this Court has been rejected, which was for recalling the order dated 23.08.2012, passed in the aforementioned four different civil appeals. By order dated 23.08.2012, the learned lower appellate court had directed that the appeals shall proceed ex-parte against defendant no.2 i.e. Mr. Sanjeev Verma. 4. In order to get a correct perspective of the matter which is before this Court, it is necessary that brief facts of the case must be stated first. A suit being Original Suit No. 49 of 2012 (Manish Verma Vs. Sri Sri 1008 Narayan Swami Charitable) and three other original suits were filed by one Mr. Manish Verma against a Trust, namely, Sri Sri 1008 Narayan Swami Charitable Trust through its trustee Mr. Sanjeev Verma (who is the petitioner before this Court). At this juncture it must be stated that the trustee Mr. Sanjeev Verma is the real younger brother of the plaintiff Mr. Manish Verma. The suit was for cancellation of the sale-deed dated 22.09.2008. According to the plaintiff the sale deed was executed by the plaintiff in favour of the Trust. The suit which was filed on 3rd May, 2012 was decreed, in less than a month on 31st May, 2012. Mr. Sanjeev Verma who had put his appearance on behalf of the Trust wherein he filed his written statement affirming the plaint contention. The suit was decreed. 5. Meanwhile, since 2008, the Trust property which was in the shape of a land building, running various Institutions, including Dental College underwent a change. Mr. Sanjeev Verma who had put his appearance on behalf of the Trust wherein he filed his written statement affirming the plaint contention. The suit was decreed. 5. Meanwhile, since 2008, the Trust property which was in the shape of a land building, running various Institutions, including Dental College underwent a change. The new trustees were included and infact the original trustees resigned and the trust itself changed its name to “Dr. Jagat Narain Subarti Charitable Trust”. In other words, all the property of the earlier trust, namely, Sri Sri 1008 Narayan Swami Charitable Trust was now with the new Trust, namely, Dr. Jagat Narayan Subarti Charitable Trust. All this was done prior to the institution of Original Suit No.49 of 2012 and other three suits for cancellation of other sale deeds. Since there were four different sale deeds hence four suits. All the same, Mr. Manish Verma chose to file original suits for cancellation of the sale-deeds against the old Trust through his real younger brother and the fate of the said suits has already been referred above. As soon as the new Trust which was now having the property in its name had knowledge of such a decree it filed appeal being Civil Appeal No.72 of 2012 and three other civil appeals. 6. The lower appellate court while admitting the appeals on 13.07.2012 observed as under:- “From the facts mentioned in the application as well as in the appeal memo, the impugned judgment and decree dated 31.05.2012 appears to be collusive, fraudulent and jurisdiction of the trial court is also disputed. The judgment has been delivered in haste. In these circumstances, I am of the view that the appeal filed is within time from the date of the knowledge of the judgment and decree. Appellant is permitted to file this appeal and the appeal is admitted for hearing.” 7. Against this order, three writ petitions (WPMS No.2001 of 2012, WPMS No.2004 of 2012 and WPMS No.2005 of 2012) were filed, which were taken up for hearing together were dismissed by this Court vide judgment and order dated 18.10.2012 on the ground that there was actually no delay and there was no anomaly in the order while admitting the appeal. Against this order, three writ petitions (WPMS No.2001 of 2012, WPMS No.2004 of 2012 and WPMS No.2005 of 2012) were filed, which were taken up for hearing together were dismissed by this Court vide judgment and order dated 18.10.2012 on the ground that there was actually no delay and there was no anomaly in the order while admitting the appeal. While doing so, this Court noticed the allegations of both fraud as well as collusion alleged by the appellant/respondent in the writ petition, though it was clearly mentioned in the judgment that it will have no bearing on the disposal of the appeals which will be adjudicated on its own merit. While doing so, however, this Court referred to para 13 of the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ramchandra Ganpat Shinde and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others reported in (1993) 4 SCC 216 . Paragraph 13 of the judgment reads as under:- “13. Respect for law is one of the cardinal principles for an effective operation of the Constitution, law and the popular Government. The faith of the people is the source and succour to invigorate justice intertwined with the efficacy of law. The principle of justice is ingrained in our conscience and though ours is a nascent democracy which has now taken deep roots in our ethos of adjudication – be it judicial, quasi-judicial or administrative as hallmark, the faith of the people in the efficacy of judicial process would be disillusioned if the parties are permitted to abuse its process and allowed to go scot free. It is but the primary duty and highest responsibility of the court to correct such orders at the earliest and restore the confidence of the litigant public, in the purity of the fountain of justice; remove stains on the efficacy of judicial adjudication and respect for rule of law, lest people would lose faith in the courts and take recourse to extra-constitutional remedies which is a death-knell to the rule of law.” 8. The Judgment and order dated 18.10.2012, passed in the above referred three writ petitions was challenged in three Special Leave Petitions before the Hon’ble Apex Court being SLP Nos.4148 to 4150, which were also dismissed vide order dated 04.02.2013. The fate of the remaining 4th writ petition which was filed against the 4th civil appeal was also the same. 9. The Judgment and order dated 18.10.2012, passed in the above referred three writ petitions was challenged in three Special Leave Petitions before the Hon’ble Apex Court being SLP Nos.4148 to 4150, which were also dismissed vide order dated 04.02.2013. The fate of the remaining 4th writ petition which was filed against the 4th civil appeal was also the same. 9. The dispute before this Court, which arises now consequent to the dismissal of the writ petitions and the SLPs, as referred above is that the summons which were issued by the lower appellate court to Mr. Sanjeev Verma on 24.07.2012 were alleged to have been served on 26.07.2012. None of the two brothers, namely, Manish Verma and Sanjeev Verma (both plaintiff and defendant in the original suit), and now opposite parties in the appeal were present before the lower appellate court. The lower appellate court on 01.08.2012 observed that service is sufficient to respondent no.2 and fixed the date in the matter as 23.08.2012. On 23.08.2012, respondent no.1 i.e. defendant no.1 was present but respondent no.2/defendant no.2 (Petitioner here) was not present. Since the lower appellate court noticed that summons were personally served on the respondent no. 2 on 26.07.2012, yet one further opportunity was given to respondent no.2 for putting his appearance and the next date fixed in the matter was 23.08.2012. On 23.08.2012 opposite party no.1 was present but opposite party no.2 did not put his appearance, therefore, the lower appellate court ordered that the matter shall proceed against the opposite party no.2 exparte. This order dated 13.08.2012 was not challenged by the present petitioner who was a newly impleaded respondent in the appeal. The fact remains that both Mr. Manish Verma and Mr. Sanjeev Verma are real brothers, who reside in the same premises, though according to petitioner it is a huge property at Gandhi Road, Dehradun. 10. Moreover, the learned counsel for respondent no.1 Mr. Sobhit Saharia has also apprised this Court that both of them i.e. Sri Manish Verma and Sanjeev Verma (Petitioner) have filed an Original Suit No.60 of 2012 at Dehradun though in different Court. Both have joined as plaintiffs in the above suit. The Court took notice of this aspect and came to the conclusion that not only the application for recalling the order dated 23.08.2012 where the Court directed to proceed ex-parte against Mr. Both have joined as plaintiffs in the above suit. The Court took notice of this aspect and came to the conclusion that not only the application for recalling the order dated 23.08.2012 where the Court directed to proceed ex-parte against Mr. Sanjeev Verma, is not a bonafide application but it is highly belated. There is a report that the notice was personally served to the respondent no.2. The intention of the respondent no. 2 is to delay the proceedings and the application was rejected. Aggrieved, he has filed these writ petitions. 11. There is absolutely no doubt in the mind of this Court that these writ petitions are not only without merit but it is also an abuse of the process of Court. Petitioner is simply trying to delay the proceedings. 12. Considering the nature of the suit itself, the manner in which it proceeded and culminated to final decision and the totality of the facts and circumstances no fault can be found with the order dated 16.10.2014. It is absolutely a just order, under the circumstances. 13. In view thereof, no interference is liable to be made in the order dated 16.10.2014 by this Court, consequently, the writ petitions are hereby dismissed with a direction to lower appellate court to expedite the matter without granting any unnecessary adjournment to any of the parties. It is made clear that the lower appellate court shall decide the case on its own merit and shall not be influenced by any observation of this Court which is purely for the purpose of adjudicating the present writ petitions. 14. No order as to costs.