Arun Palli, J.:- 1. This is an application for recalling the order dated 09.12.2014, vide which the appeal preferred by the applicant was dismissed as withdrawn and he was granted six months' time to vacate the demised premises. In short, it is maintained that, "counsel of applicant did not contested the case properly nor disclosed his side correctly. The applicant is totally illiterate and does not know English language. The counsel of applicant did not disclose true and actual facts before the Hon'ble High Court and without taking consent of the applicant, as per the consent of counsel of applicant, the Hon'ble Court has pleased to vacate the shop within 6 months. Regarding the shop in dispute there are other two cases are pending in the Lower Courts and on 6.2.2015 when the applicant appeared in the court of Miss Sumukhi, then he came to know about the Judgment and order dated 9.12.2014 of this Hon'ble High Court through Advocate of Tara Singh, which is injustice with the applicant and his family." 2. A brief narration of the facts, that have led the parties to this stage, would be essential and expedient. A decree for possession, as regards the demised premises was passed against the applicant, and having failed before the first appellate court, he had approached this court vide RSA No. 5758 of 2014. On 04.12.2014, learned counsel for the applicant argued the matter at length and having sensed that this court was not inclined to interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by both the courts below, and as an observation was also made that at best the applicant could be granted some time to vacate the premises, she submitted that let some reasonable time be granted to the applicant and he would not press the appeal. That being so, she was asked to furnish an affidavit in this regard. Since, the applicant was present during the hearing, learned counsel for the applicant prayed for a pass over so as to file the necessary affidavit. The matter was passed over. Later, an affidavit dated 04.12.2014 was filed in court and was taken on record, which reads as thus: "1. That the instant appeal is listed for today before this Hon'ble Court. 2. That the appellants needs some time to vacate the demised shops in the interest of justice. 3. The matter was passed over. Later, an affidavit dated 04.12.2014 was filed in court and was taken on record, which reads as thus: "1. That the instant appeal is listed for today before this Hon'ble Court. 2. That the appellants needs some time to vacate the demised shops in the interest of justice. 3. That the appellant wishes to withdraw this appeal and further undertakes not to filed any such similar appeal/case in future against the respondents. 4. That the appellant may kindly be allowed to withdraw the appeal with liberty as prayed for." 3. As a result, the following order was passed: - "Present: Ms. Satpreet Grewal, Advocate for the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the appellant is ready to withdraw the appeal and vacate the demised premises provided he is afforded six months time to vacate the premises and hand over the actual physical possession thereof to the respondent- Decree Holder. She has also produced an affidavit of the appellant in this regard, which is taken on record. Notice of motion to the respondent-Decree Holder, limited to the afore-indicated extent only, for 09.12.2014. Process dasti only." 4. On 09.12.2014, since learned counsel for the respondent/decree-holder maintained that let six months time be granted to the applicant, this court passed the following order: "On 04.12.2014, this court had passed the following order: "Present: Ms. Satpreet Grewal, Advocate for the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the appellant is ready to withdraw the appeal and vacate the demised premises provided he is afforded six months time to vacate the premises and hand over the actual physical possession thereof to the respondent-Decree Holder. She has also produced an affidavit of the appellant in this regard, which is taken on record. Notice of motion to the respondent- Decree Holder, limited to the afore-indicated extent only, for 09.12.2014. Process dasti only." Mr. Arun Takhi, Advocate, who has caused appearance on behalf of the respondent, submits that let six months time be granted to the appellant from today to vacate the demised premises. Learned counsel for the appellant re-assures the court that appellant would vacate the demises premises on or before 09.05.2015 and hand over its actual physical and vacant possession to the respondent/decree-holder. He submits that in case the appellant fails to deliver possession even after 09.05.2015, respondent/decree-holder shall be at liberty to have the decree executed forthwith. Learned counsel for the appellant re-assures the court that appellant would vacate the demises premises on or before 09.05.2015 and hand over its actual physical and vacant possession to the respondent/decree-holder. He submits that in case the appellant fails to deliver possession even after 09.05.2015, respondent/decree-holder shall be at liberty to have the decree executed forthwith. He further undertakes that appellant would not file any objection or initiate any fresh litigation as regards the suit property. In the wake of the above, the appellant is granted six months time to vacate the premises and hand over its actual physical and vacant possession to the respondent/ decree-holder on 09.05.2015, failing which decree shall be executed forthwith. As prayed for, appeal is dismissed as withdrawn. Appellant shall place on record copy of his affidavit, dated 04.12.2014, before the executing court within a week from today." 5. And now, as indicated above, after almost three months of passing of the order dated 09.12.2014, an application has been moved seeking recalling of the said order. 6. Pursuant to the notice issued to the then counsel for the parties, they have filed their replies, respectively. To an extent it would be relevant, the stand set out in the reply filed by the respondent/decree-holder reads as thus: "Preliminary objections: 1. That the appellant/applicant has not approached this Hon'ble Court with clean hands and has stated wrong facts which are contrary to the affidavits submitted by the appellant/applicant dated 04.12.2014 before this Hon'ble Court. Since the appellant/applicant was present before this Hon'ble Court on 04.12.2014, therefore, he submitted affidavit praying therein for the grant of six months time to vacate the shop in question. This Hon'ble Court only after the submission of affidavit dated 04.12.2014 by the appellant/applicant issued notice to the answering respondent for 09.12.2014 and the answering respondent after appearance through his Counsel on 09.12.2014 conceded the prayer made by the appellant/applicant in his presence and accordingly the order dated 09.12.2014 was passed by this Hon'ble Court. Now the appellant/applicant cannot wriggle out of the depositions made by him in his affidavit dated 04.12.2014 by merely saying that his consent was not taken by his Counsel. Now the appellant/applicant cannot wriggle out of the depositions made by him in his affidavit dated 04.12.2014 by merely saying that his consent was not taken by his Counsel. The averment made by the appellant/applicant in the application that he came to know about the order dated 09.12.2014 passed by this Hon'ble Court on 06.02.2015 is totally contrary to his own affidavit dated 04.12.2014 submitted before this Hon'ble Court because he was very much present before this Hon'ble Court on 04.12.2014 which led him to file the affidavit. The appellant/applicant has also wrongly stated that he is totally illiterate and does not know English language. A perusal of the application would show that the appellant/applicant has signed the application as well as affidavit in English language only which makes it clear that he can write English language and as such the averment made by the appellant/applicant to this extent is also wrong. The answering respondent prays that Judicial notice may kindly be taken and Contempt proceedings may kindly be initiated against the appellant/applicant for filing false affidavits before this Hon'ble Court and the application filed by the appellant/applicant for condonation of delay may kindly be dismissed with heavy costs. 2. That the conduct of the appellant/applicant is also not above board as the appellant/applicant has not deposited the payment of rent/compensation for the use and occupation of demised shop at the rate of 50 per month since November, 2010 till date despite clear directions given by the Learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Hoshiarpur vide Judgment and Decree dated 03.02.2012 which has been further upheld by the Learned Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur vide Judgment and Decree dated 16.09.2014. Hence, no interference is called for by this Hon'ble Court and as such the application filed by the appellant/applicant is liable to be dismissed on this ground also." 7. Since power of attorney accompanying the appeal i.e. RSA-5758-2014, was executed by the applicant in favour of Mr. Rajeev K. Kapila & Ms. Satpreet Grewal Kapila, Advocates. Ms. Satpreet Grewal Kapila, Advocate appeared for the applicant/appellant on 04.12.2014, and on the adjourned date i.e. 09.12.2014, Mr. Rajeev K. Kapila, Advocate appeared for the applicant/appellant. Therefore, both have filed their personal affidavits. To an extent it would be relevant, what has been set out in the affidavit of Ms. Satpreet Grewal Kapila, Advocate, reads as thus: "1. Ms. Satpreet Grewal Kapila, Advocate appeared for the applicant/appellant on 04.12.2014, and on the adjourned date i.e. 09.12.2014, Mr. Rajeev K. Kapila, Advocate appeared for the applicant/appellant. Therefore, both have filed their personal affidavits. To an extent it would be relevant, what has been set out in the affidavit of Ms. Satpreet Grewal Kapila, Advocate, reads as thus: "1. That para no.1 of the application is wrong and denied. The applicant/appellant has been fighting litigation in the courts of law for last many years and as such he is well aware of the proceedings and he puts his signatures in English language. 2. That contents of para no.2 of the application was wrong and denied. This appeal was taken up for preliminary hearing on 4-12-2014 before this Hon'ble Court and on the said date the appellant was very much present in court. He was present when the preliminary submissions were made by the deponent and after arguing the matter this Hon'ble court was pleased to grant sometime to the appellant to vacate the premises as the finding of fact was already against the appellant/applicant and he had lost in both the courts below. The appellant/applicant was also directed by this Hon'ble court to file an affidavit in this regard. On same day i.e. on 4-12-2014 the deponent explained the view of this Hon'ble court to the appellant/applicant and explained to him that he will get 6 months time to vacate the premises and for that he will have to file an affidavit and then he got his affidavit duly sworn on that day itself duly entered at s. no.41091 dt. 4-12-14 and after submitting the affidavit in court on that day notice of motion was issued and the process was dasti only, again regarding this the deponent had explained to the appellant/applicant that he will have to collect the summons and then get it served personally and he lateron collected the summons. Thereupon the case was adjourned for 9-12-2014." 8. Likewise, what has been set out in the affidavit filed by Mr. Rajeev K. Kapila, Advocate, and to an extent it would be crucial, reads as thus: "1. That para no.1 of the application is wrong and denied. The applicant/appellant has been fighting litigation in the courts of law for last many years and as such he is well aware of the proceedings and he puts his signatures in English. Rajeev K. Kapila, Advocate, and to an extent it would be crucial, reads as thus: "1. That para no.1 of the application is wrong and denied. The applicant/appellant has been fighting litigation in the courts of law for last many years and as such he is well aware of the proceedings and he puts his signatures in English. 2. That contents of para no.2 of the application was wrong and denied. This appeal was taken up for preliminary hearing on 4-12-2014 before this Hon'ble Court and on the said date the appellant was very much present in court. He was present when the preliminary submissions were made by the other counsel namely Satpreet Grewal Kapila and after arguing the matter this Hon'ble court was pleased to grant sometime to the appellant to vacate the premises as the finding of fact was already against the appellant/applicant and he had lost in both the courts below. The appellant/applicant was also directed by this Hon'ble court to file an affidavit in this regard. On same day i.e. on 4-12-2014 the deponent explained the view of this Hon'ble court to the appellant/applicant and explained to him that he will get 6 months time to vacate the premises and for that he will have to file an affidavit and then he got his affidavit duly sworn on that day itself which was entered at s. no.41091 dt. 4-12-14 and after submitting the affidavit in court on that day notice of motion was issued and the process was dasti only, again regarding this the deponent had explained to the appellant/applicant that he will have to collect the summons and then get it served personally and he lateron collected the summons on 6-12-2014 at Distt. Courts Hoshiarpur in the chamber of local lawyer and there also he was explained that he has been given time to 6 months to vacate the premises and he himself took a process server from the court and served the summons on respondent on same day. Thereupon the case was adjourned for 9-12-2014. 3. That the contents of this para are wrong and denied. The deponent duly explained to the appellant/applicant on 9-12-2014, as he was appearing on that day on behalf of the applicant/appellant that he has been granted 6 months time to vacate the demised shop, as directed by this Hon'ble Court after considering his case on merits. 3. That the contents of this para are wrong and denied. The deponent duly explained to the appellant/applicant on 9-12-2014, as he was appearing on that day on behalf of the applicant/appellant that he has been granted 6 months time to vacate the demised shop, as directed by this Hon'ble Court after considering his case on merits. On 9-12-2014 he brought back the summons after serving and then the counsel for respondent had appeared and on 9-12-2014 also he was very much present in court and watched the proceedings in his case. On this day also the deponent told the appellant/applicant regarding the affidavit given by him in court and after the final order was passed he collected the certified copy of the order on 20.12.2014 from the deponent at Distt. Courts Hoshiarpur. The averment raised by the applicant/appellant that he was not explained and he did not gave consent for vacating the premises, is totally false and concocted one. It is an afterthought by the applicant/appellant just to delay the matter and thus deserves to be dismissed with costs." 9. On a due and thoughtful consideration of the matter in issue, I am of the considered view that the instant application is not only devoid of merit but seriously lacks bonafides, as is being demonstrated hereinafter. 10. Having lost before the two courts, applicant was in second appeal before this court. His counsel argued the matter at length and having sensed that this court was not inclined to interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by both the courts below, and as an observation was also made that at best the applicant could be granted some time to vacate the premises, she submitted that let some reasonable time be granted to the applicant and he shall not press the appeal, something, though not clearly stated or spelt out in the affidavit of the counsel. That being so, she was asked to furnish an affidavit in this regard. Since, the applicant was present during the hearing, learned counsel for the applicant prayed for a pass over so as to file the necessary affidavit. The matter was passed over. Later, an affidavit dated 04.12.2014 was filed in court and was taken on record. Concededly, applicant was present in court on 04.12.2014 and watched the proceedings. Indisputably, he filed an affidavit affirmed on 04.12.2014 itself, in court. The matter was passed over. Later, an affidavit dated 04.12.2014 was filed in court and was taken on record. Concededly, applicant was present in court on 04.12.2014 and watched the proceedings. Indisputably, he filed an affidavit affirmed on 04.12.2014 itself, in court. Though, he purports to be an illiterate person and does not know English language, but the affidavit that was sworn in by the applicant was signed in English. An analysis of the affidavits submitted by his counsel, as extracted in the proceeding paragraphs, reveal that the entire position was duly explained to the applicant and only thereafter, he furnished his duly sworn affidavit in court. The position, that has neither been controverted by the applicant by filing any counter affidavit nor even otherwise by his counsel during the course of hearing of the instant application. Not just that, since the process to serve the respondent/decree-holder was issued dasti only, for 09.12.2014, in the affidavit filed by Mr. Rajeev K. Kapila, Advocate, it is maintained that the applicant had collected the summons from him on 06.12.2014 at District Court Hoshiarpur in the chamber of local lawyer and there again he was explained that he has been granted six months time to vacate the premises. Further, he himself took the process server from the court and served the respondent the same day. Still further, having effected service upon the respondent/decree-holder, he brought back the summons on 09.12.2014. And as, he was present in court even on 09.12.2014, he watched the proceedings in his case. Subsequently, he even collected the certified copy of the order dated 09.12.2014, from Mr. Rajeev K. Kapila, Advocate, at District Court Hoshiarpur. 11. It would be apposite to point out at this juncture again, that this court had granted six months' time to the applicant on 09.12.2014, and the application seeking recalling of the order dated 09.12.2014 was moved after almost three months i.e. on 03.03.2015. Ex facie, the version of the applicant that he was clueless that he has been granted six months time to vacate the shop in question and his counsel had withdrawn the appeal as he actually acquired knowledge qua order dated 09.12.2014 only on 06.02.2015, when he appeared in the court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hoshiarpur, is palpably erroneous, false and seriously lacks bonafides. 12. 12. Learned counsel for the respondent/decree-holder produced a certified copy of the order dated 17.12.2014, passed by the executing court a week after passing of the order dated 09.12.2014, by this court, which reads as thus: "Present: Shri SK Jhamat, Adv. for the decree holder. JD in person. Reply/objections not filed. JD requested for adjournment. Now to come up on 3.2.2015, for filing of reply subject to last opportunity. Sd/- (Poonam Bansal PCS) ACJ SD/Hpr./17.12.2014 Sir, High Court order dated 9/12/14 is received & attached." 13. Apparently, the applicant appeared in person and the note on the order sheet reveals that the order passed by this court dated 09.12.2014, was received and attached with the records before the executing court. Not just that, in an injunction suit filed by the respondent/decree-holder against the applicant, qua the demised premises, counsel for the respondent/decree-holder suffered a statement that RSA filed by the applicant was dismissed by this court on 09.12.2014, in which the applicant had given an undertaking that he shall surrender the vacant possession of the disputed shop to the plaintiff. Accordingly, Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hoshiarpur, vide order dated 11.12.2014, dismissed the suit as withdrawn, in the presence of the counsel for the applicant. The said order reads as thus: "Present: Shri Jhamat, Adv. counsel for the plaintiff. Shri PS Sangha, Adv. counsel for the defendant. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has suffered statement that RSA was filed by the defendant-Satpal, which was decided on 09.12.2014 by Hon'ble Justice Arun Pali in which defendants give undertaken that he will surrendered the vacant possession of the shop in dispute to the plaintiff. In view of the statement suffered by the counsel for plaintiff, the present suit is ordered to be dismissed as withdrawn. File be consigned to the record room." 14. That being so, an analysis of the position as set out above, leads to an irresistible and inescapable conclusion, that the applicant was fully alive, aware and had due knowledge of the proceedings in its entirety. He willingly and voluntarily chose to withdraw his appeal as he was granted six months time to vacate the demised premises. The application in hand is apparently an afterthought that stems from a subsequent professional advice/opinion. He willingly and voluntarily chose to withdraw his appeal as he was granted six months time to vacate the demised premises. The application in hand is apparently an afterthought that stems from a subsequent professional advice/opinion. This is not his case either that having come to know on 06.02.2015, that his appeal was dismissed as withdrawn and he was granted six months' time to vacate the premises, he ever contacted his counsel to ascertain the true and correct position. The reason is obvious. What could he have gone for, when he was alive to everything. 15. As the application lacks both i.e. merits and bonafides, the same is dismissed.