JUDGMENT Arun Bhansali, J. - This application under section 151 CPC has been filed by the applicants seeking recall of the order dated 11/7/2018 passed in S.B. Civil Regular First Appeal No.62/2014, whereby, on an application submitted by the applicants, the first appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. 2. It is inter alia indicated in the application that against the judgment and decree dated 20/1/2014 passed by District Judge, Banswara in Civil Original Case No. 39/2012, S.B. Civil Regular First Appeal No.62/2014 was filed. The appeal was admitted, interim order was granted and after service of notice on the sole respondent-plaintiff, the interim order was confirmed with modification providing for payment of mesne profit. 3. An application under section 151 CPC for withdrawal of the appeal was filed on 7/7/2018 inter alia indicating that appellants do not press the appeal, hence they want to withdraw the appeal to avail further alternative remedy, if so advised. Based on the said application, by order dated 11/7/2018, for the reasons mentioned in the application, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. 4. It is further indicated in the application that since the sole respondent is a powerful land Mafia, pressurized the applicants for withdrawal of appeal and settlement of dispute and on account of the pressure created by the respondent and one Vithla, brother of the applicant no.1, the applicants in 'bonafide misconception' proceeded to withdraw the appeal & now facing hardship. It is claimed that the applicants are illiterate persons, unaware of the legal complicacy of the matter and on account of insistence of respondent and Vithla, the applicants 'in bonafide impression' of settling the dispute and unaware of the consequences, came to Jodhpur and withdrew the appeal. 5. It is then claimed in the application that the respondent started pressing the execution application pending before the Executing court when the applicants came to know that they have been 'cheated' by the respondent and Vithla, due to which the order of withdrawal was obtained by the applicants and, therefore, the order dated 11/7/2018 permitting withdrawal of the appeal is required to be recalled. 6. 6. Submissions have been made that the respondent was handing-love with Vithla, brother of the applicant no.1, and was trying to dislodge the applicants in an illegal and arbitrary manner while committing 'mischief' and, therefore, the order dated 11/7/2018 permitting withdrawal of the appeal be recalled and the appeal be restored to its original number. 7. An additional affidavit has also been filed along with the order sheets of the Executing Court and submissions have been made that the appeal was withdrawn which is a 'bonafide mistake'. 8. Learned counsel for the applicants made submissions in consonance with the averments contained in the application. It was submitted that there was no reason for the applicants to withdraw the appeal and as the same was withdrawn on account of influence/pressure created by Vithla, brother of the applicant no.1, who was hand-inglove with the respondent, the appeal was withdrawn and, therefore, the order permitting withdrawal of the appeal deserves to be recalled. 9. Submissions were made that even if there is no provision in CPC contemplating such an eventuality, as the recalling of order is not prohibited, the application in this regard is maintainable and, therefore, the application be allowed. 10. Reliance was placed on Ram Chandra Singh vs. Savitri Devi & Ors., (2003) 8 SCC 319 , Rajendra Prasad Gupta vs. Prakash Chandra Mishra & Ors., (2011) 2 SCC 705 and Nanda & ors. vs. LRs of Suwa Lal & Ors. : SB Civil Misc. Application No. 46/2012 decided on 16/7/2014. 11. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicants and have perused the material available on record. 12. A perusal of the application filed by the applicants reveals that insofar as filing of application dated 7/7/2018 seeking withdrawal of the first appeal is concerned, the same is not denied, regarding which a specific assertion has been made that the applicants came to Jodhpur and withdrew the appeal. The application seeking withdrawal was a simple application, wherein, the fact of filing appeal, its pendency and the fact that appellants do not want to press the appeal were indicated and a prayer was made to allow withdrawal of the appeal. Based on which, the first appeal, which was pending hearing in 'due course' was dismissed as withdrawn on 11/7/2018. 13. Based on which, the first appeal, which was pending hearing in 'due course' was dismissed as withdrawn on 11/7/2018. 13. In the application, as noticed hereinbefore, the applicants have taken several pleas like 'bonafide misconception', 'in bonafide impression', 'cheated', 'mischief' & 'bonafide mistake' in relation to the application filed seeking withdrawal of the appeal. 14. However, specific averments have been made in para 4 of the application as under: "Meaning thereby that the respondent plaintiff started pressing for execution proceedings pending before the court below and it is before the Executing Court, the humble applicants came to know that the applicants have been cheated by the respondent and applicant no.1's brother Vithla who any how manipulated and impress upon the applicants so as to settle the dispute and as such, the order of withdrawal having been obtained by applicants under undue influence created by respondent as well as applicant No.1's brother Vithla for settling of the issue." (emphasis supplied) 15. The above averments indicate that the fact of alleged cheating came to the notice of the applicants when the plaintiff started pressing for execution proceedings. 16. Under the directions of the Court, the applicants have filed certified copies of the execution proceedings. A perusal of the execution proceedings indicates that the execution proceedings were registered by the Executing court on 31/5/2017 when notices were ordered to be issued. After four dates awaiting service, on 27/3/2018 the applicant Lala put in appearance and, thereafter, 20/4/2018, 1/6/2018 and 30/7/2018 were the dates fixed. The very fact that in the application which was filed seeking withdrawal of the appeal before this Court affidavit was sworn on 1/7/2018, which was filed on 7/7/2018 clearly reflects that the same was filed after the applicant Lala had put in appearance before the Executing court and, therefore, the averments quoted hereinbefore claiming that when plaintiff started pressing for execution, the applicants came to know about their getting cheated is on its face, false inasmuch as the applicant Lala was well aware of the execution proceedings and after getting served of the notices putting in appearance before the Executing court, the application was filed and appeal was withdrawn. 17. The falsity of the plea raised is writ large from the material which has been produced on the directions of the Court and, therefore, the plea sought to be raised, apparently, has no basis. 18. 17. The falsity of the plea raised is writ large from the material which has been produced on the directions of the Court and, therefore, the plea sought to be raised, apparently, has no basis. 18. Besides the above, the applicants herein, before the Executing court, after the order of withdrawal was passed by this Court, sought time on 9/8/2018 and 19/9/2018 and filed an application on 20/10/2018 indicating that besides the applicants, other necessary parties have not been impleaded. 19. Where after, after seeking time on 24/12/2018 & 14/2/2019, on 12/4/2019 an application under Section 340 Cr.P.C , 1973& 195(1) Cr.P.C. was filed alleging the registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff as concocted. Both the applications were rejected by the Executing court on 2/5/2019. It appears that after rejection of the said applications, it dawned on the applicants to seek recall of the order, whereby, the appeal filed by them was withdrawn and the present application was filed on 9/5/2019. 20. As already noticed hereinbefore, though a false averment regarding applicants coming to know about the alleged 'cheating' after the plaintiff started pressing for execution of the decree has been raised, which fact has been found per se false as the applicant Lala had already put in appearance in the execution proceedings filed by the plaintiff, the very fact that instead of approaching this Court, in case there was any wrong doing on the part of plaintiff, immediately, first attempts were made before the Executing court and then as a last resort the present application has been filed, which action per se is not bonafide. 21. Though this Court is of firm opinion that once the proceedings have been withdrawn under Order XXIII, Rule 1 CPC, unless the allegations are that the act of withdrawal of the proceedings was fraudulent, if party on a rethink attempts to seek recall of the order, such an application apparently is not maintainable. 22. However, looking to the insistence of learned counsel for the applicants and the fact that the applicants were claimed to be illiterate/belonging to lower strata, the entire plea raised was examined on merits and as apparently the application is not bonafide, no relief can be granted, as claimed by the applicants. 23. 22. However, looking to the insistence of learned counsel for the applicants and the fact that the applicants were claimed to be illiterate/belonging to lower strata, the entire plea raised was examined on merits and as apparently the application is not bonafide, no relief can be granted, as claimed by the applicants. 23. So far as the reliance placed on the judgment in the case of Rajendra Prasad Gupta (supra) is concerned, the issue pertained to whether the application filed seeking withdrawal of the suit itself could be withdrawn, which has no application to the facts of the present case. 24. In the case of Ram Chandra Singh (supra), the allegations made were obtaining of order by practicing fraud, which is not the case of the applicants in the present case. 25. Similarly, in the case of Nanda (supra) the matter pertained to withdrawal of the proceedings by few of the appellants, which also has no application to the facts of the present case. 26. In view of the above discussion, the application seeking recall of the order dated 11/7/2018 has no substance and the same is, therefore, dismissed.