JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. 1. By way of this application, the applicant/petitioner has prayed for recalling of order dated 11.01.2017, vide which, the petition was ordered to be dismissed for non-prosecution, as learned counsel appearing for the applicant/petitioner pleaded no instructions. 2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present application are that respondents herein have filed a suit, i.e., Civil Suit No. 23/1 of 2010 for declaration and injunction against the applicant praying for the following reliefs: “ (i) That a decree for declaration may kindly be passed in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendant declaring that the order dated 19.12.1997 passed in Case No. 1077-78 by the Ld. Assistant Collector, Second Grade Rural, Shimla is illegal, wrong, void, without jurisdiction and is bad in law being contrary to the provisions of law and consequently the revenue entries showing the defendant to be tenant over the land comprised in Khewat No. 27 min, Khatauni No. 52, Khasra Nos. 223, 230, 242, 267, 411, 425, 476, 645, 680, 684, 703, 704, 736, 737, 740, 745, 754, 757, 766, 767 and 969, total Kite-21, measuring 25-12 bighas, situated in Mauza Parcech, Tehsil and District Shimla are illegal, wrong, void and inoperative against the right, title and interest of the plaintiff and further a decree for declaration may kindly be passed in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendant declaring that the plaintiffs are owners in possession of the suit land as mentioned above. (ii) That a decree for permanent prohibitory injunction may kindly be passed in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendant restraining the defendant from interfering in any manner in the ownership and possession of the plaintiff over the suit land in any manner either personally or through her servants, family members, contractors etc. (iii) That a decree for mandatory injunction may kindly be passed in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants in case the defendants during the pendency of the suit succeed in dispossessing the plaintiffs from the suit property.” 3. This suit is pending adjudication before the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No. V, Shimla, H.P. Notices were issued in the suit by the learned Trial Court on 24.04.2010 for 24.06.2010. This suit is pending adjudication before the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No. V, Shimla, H.P. Notices were issued in the suit by the learned Trial Court on 24.04.2010 for 24.06.2010. On the said date, as defendant, i.e., the present applicant (hereinafter referred to as 'the defendant’) did not appear before the learned Trial Court, therefore, she was ordered to be proceeded against ex parte. The case was ordered to be listed for recording of ex parte evidence on 13.08.2010. On the said date, as plaintiff’s witnesses were not present, the case was ordered to be listed for recording ex parte evidence for 28.10.2010. On the said date, i.e., 28.10.2010, Shri Deepak Gupta, learned counsel appeared for the defendant and filed an application under Order 9, Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside ex parte order dated 24.06.2010. Vide order dated 07.06.2011, the application so filed on behalf of the defendant, was allowed by the learned Trial Court in the following terms: “7.6.2011 Present: Sh. Varun Dev, Advocate vice for plaintiff/non-applicant. Sh. Aneesh Banshtu, Advocate vice for defendant/applicant. In view of the no objection tendered by the ld. Counsel for the plaintiff in the morning, the application under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC is allowed. The defendant is relegated back to the stage of service. However, considering the delay of 4 months, the application is allowed subject to cost of Rs.250/-. Let written statement now be filed on 23.6.2011.” The case was thereafter ordered to be listed for 23.06.2011 to enable the defendant to file written statement. 4. On 23.06.2011, learned Trial Court passed the following order: “23.6.2011 Present: Sh. Varun Dev, Advocate for plaintiff. Sh. Anil Negi, Advocate, for defendant. Time sought for filing w/s/ Cost still not paid. List on 18.7.11 for filing w/s subject to payment of cost imposed vide order dated 7.6.11.” 5. Thereafter, when the case was listed before the Court on 18.07.2011, learned Trial Court passed the following order: “18.7.2011 Present: Sh. Varun Dev, Advocate vice for plaintiff/non-applicant. Sh. Deepak Gupta, Advocate, for defendant. At this stage, Sh. Deepak Gupta, Advocate, who is appearing as counsel for the defendant has intimated to the Court that he has received no instructions from the defendant. His power of attorney is taken off record. Varun Dev, Advocate vice for plaintiff/non-applicant. Sh. Deepak Gupta, Advocate, for defendant. At this stage, Sh. Deepak Gupta, Advocate, who is appearing as counsel for the defendant has intimated to the Court that he has received no instructions from the defendant. His power of attorney is taken off record. Let notice be issued to the personal service of the defendant for 16.8.2011 through special messenger.” 6. This was followed by the following order, which was passed by the learned Trial Court on 16.08.2011: “16.08.2011 Present: Sh. Pawan Keprate, Advocate, for the plaintiff. Sh. Anish Banshtu, Advocate vice for defendant (Memo of appearance filed) The defendant was served vide order dated 24.04.2010 but was not putting in appearance, therefore, he was proceeded against ex parte on 24.06.2010. On no objection of the plaintiff, defendant was relegated back to the stage of service on 07.06.2011. Accordingly, one exceptional last opportunity is granted to the defendant for filing written statement on or before 07.09.2011, on which date, the statutory period of 90 days shall elapse. It is made clear to the defendant that no further opportunity shall be granted for filing written statement.” 7. On 07.09.2011, as the defendant did not appear before the learned Trial Court despite repeated calls, she was ordered to be proceeded against ex parte and the case was thereafter ordered to be listed for production of ex parte evidence for 21.09.2011. 8. Thereafter, when the case was listed before the learned Trial Court on 01.11.2011, an application was filed under Order 9, Rule 7 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure on behalf of the defendant for setting aside ex parte order dated 07.09.2011. This application was dismissed by the learned Trial Court on 01.11.2011 itself in the following terms: “……………...In face of the query that it is a matter of practice and principle that a counsel in case of 'no instruction’ must plead no instruction by appearing before the Court, it has been submitted by Ld. Counsel for the applicant that since on previous date of hearing i.e. on 16.08.2011 only 'memo of appearance’ has been filed on behalf of the applicant, her counsel was not bound to plead 'no instructions’. Ld. Counsel for the applicant that since on previous date of hearing i.e. on 16.08.2011 only 'memo of appearance’ has been filed on behalf of the applicant, her counsel was not bound to plead 'no instructions’. Ld. Counsel for applicant has also submitted that a hyper technical view of law should not be taken especially in view of the fact, also averred in the application, that the applicant is illiterate and rustic village woman and is not aware the difference between 'memo of appearance’ and a 'power of attorney’ which is not a question of law. I am not in agreement with the submission of Ld. Counsel for the applicant. A bare perusal of the application goes to show that the very crux of the grounds on which the application has been moved is that she is not conversant with the intricacies of law, due to which she believed that once the counsel has appeared in the case he will appear on the subsequent hearings as well. The plea taken is a plea of ignorance of law rather than a fact since it pertains to the procedure of the Court. In view of the submission of Ld. Counsel for the applicant, I am of the considered view that as on 07.09.2011 it was the responsibility of the applicant to appear personally or instruct the counsel thus Ld. Counsel is right in saying that he was not pursuing the matter in absence of any instruction. In regards with this submission, I am of the view that although memo of appearance serves the purpose of authorising a counsel to appear on behalf of the party only on one date, however, that does not mean that once memo of appearance has been filed and after that the party or counsel thereof fails to appear the Court is duty bound to issue notices afresh as whether by appearing as a 'power of attorney’ or by filing 'memo of appearance’ it is the party who is putting in appearance and the Court shall issue notices only when 'no instructions’ have been pleaded. Mischief of practice otherwise need not be elucidated any further. Further, the Ld. Counsel has also stated that he should be allowed to prove the averment made on merit and it is not appropriate process to dismiss his application without asking for a reply or evidence in support of the application. Mischief of practice otherwise need not be elucidated any further. Further, the Ld. Counsel has also stated that he should be allowed to prove the averment made on merit and it is not appropriate process to dismiss his application without asking for a reply or evidence in support of the application. I cannot agree with this contention also, as evidence is to be called when the Court seeks proof of the averment made in the application. However, the present observations are being made not in the fact of doubt as to any of the facts averred in the application rather this conclusion has been reached after taking the facts averred in the application to have been duly proved by way of affidavit. From which it is clear that ground being shown is a misunderstanding of a procedure of law which implies ignorance of law an excuse which cannot be recognized. I have already observed that it was the applicant, who was responsible for appearance on 07.09.2011 as there is no averment as to confusion as to the date of hearing. Accordingly, in my opinion the plea taken is definitely as to ignorance of law. The application accordingly stands dismissed. Let it be tagged after due registration.” 9. This order was assailed by the defendant before this Court by way of CMPMO No. 9/2012 filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, titled as Savitri Devi Vs. Varinder Singh and others. When the said CMPMO was listed for the first time in the Court on 12.01.2012, the following order was passed: “Notice to the respondents returnable on 05.04.2012 on taking steps within two weeks. In the meanwhile, further proceedings in Civil Suit No. 23/1 of 2010 pending in the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Court No. 5, Shimla is hereby stayed.” 10. Thereafter, the case was listed on various dates up to 16.12.2013, however, the same could not be heard on merit by this Court. After 16.12.2013, the case was listed before this Court on 07.10.2016, on which date, the following order was passed: “07.10.2016 Present: Ms. Meera, Advocate vice counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Neeraj Gupta, Advocate, for the respondents. At the request of learned counsel for the petitioner, list for hearing on 24.11.2016. It is made clear that no further adjournment shall be granted in the matter keeping in view the issue involved in the same.” 11. Meera, Advocate vice counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Neeraj Gupta, Advocate, for the respondents. At the request of learned counsel for the petitioner, list for hearing on 24.11.2016. It is made clear that no further adjournment shall be granted in the matter keeping in view the issue involved in the same.” 11. Thereafter, when the case was listed on 24.11.2016, this Court passed the following order: “24.11.2016 Present: Mr. G.C. Gupta, Sr. Advocate, with Ms. Meera, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Neeraj Gupta, Advocate, for the respondents. When this case was called for hearing on 7.10.2016, the following order was passed:- “At the request of learned counsel for the petitioner, list for hearing on 24.11.2016. It is made clear that no further adjournment shall be granted in the matter keeping in view the issue involved in the same.” Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though she is willing to argue the case, however, she has not been able to contact the petitioner who was an aged lady. She prays that the case be taken up after two weeks so that she can have current instructions from the petitioner. List on 23.12.2016.” 12. On 23.12.2016, the Court passed the following order: “23.12.2016 Present: Ms. Meera Devi, Advocate vice counsel, for the petitioner. Mr. Abhinandan Thakur, Advocate vice counsel, for the respondents. “Learned counsel for the petitioner sought adjournment on the ground that instant matter is to be argued by Mr. G.C. Gupta, Senior Advocate. However, vide previous orders, repeated adjournments have already been granted to the petitioner. Perusal of the report of the Registry suggests that Mr. Gupta, has given a leave note for today. Accordingly, in view of the leave note, matter is adjourned. List next week before appropriate Bench.” 13. Thereafter, when the matter was listed before this Court on 11.01.2017, the following order was passed: “11.01.2017 Ms. Meera Devi, Advocate, vice Mr. Deepak Gupta, Advocate. Mr. Neeraj Gupta, Advocate. Ms. Meera Devi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that though she has already sent a written communication to the petitioner, however, neither the petitioner has contacted her nor she has passed on any instructions to her. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed for nonprosecution, so also the miscellaneous applications, if any. Registry is directed to send back the record of the case forthwith to the learned trial Court.” 14. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed for nonprosecution, so also the miscellaneous applications, if any. Registry is directed to send back the record of the case forthwith to the learned trial Court.” 14. It is for recalling of order dated 11.01.2017 so passed by this Court in CMPMO No. 09 of 2012 that present application has been filed by the applicant/petitioner/defendant. 15. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has argued that order dated 11.01.2017, passed by this Court, vide which, the petition has been dismissed for non-prosecution is bad in law, as once learned counsel appearing for the party pleaded no instructions, then it was the duty of the Court to have had issued notice to the party concerned, i.e., the petitioner in the present case and the Court could not and should not have dismissed the petition for non-prosecution. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the following judgments: “1. Sushila Narahari and others Vs. Nanda Kumar and another, (1996) 5 Supreme Court Cases 529. 2. Tahil Ram Issardas Sadarangani and others Vs. Ram Chand Issardas Sadarangani and another,1993 Supp. (3) Supreme Court Cases 256. 3. Malkiat Singh and another Vs. Joginder Singh and others, (1998) 2 Supreme Court Cases 206. 16. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel for the non-applicant/respondent has argued that the present application merits dismissal as it is not the duty of the Court in each and every case to issue notice to a party in case his counsel pleads no instructions. Learned Senior Counsel has further argued that the Court can not and should not exercise discretion in favour of a party which does not approaches the Court with clean hands and is a dishonest litigant. He has argued that the record of the case since the stage when the suit itself was filed, would demonstrate that the applicant herein has been playing hide and seek with the Court. She chooses to appear before the Court whenever she so desires. She engages a lawyer whenever she do desires. Her lawyers plead no instructions at any stage as per their convenience and then the same lawyers move applications on behalf of the petitioner for recalling of the order in issue. He thus submitted that filing of this application is nothing, but an abuse of the process of law and the same be dismissed. 17. Her lawyers plead no instructions at any stage as per their convenience and then the same lawyers move applications on behalf of the petitioner for recalling of the order in issue. He thus submitted that filing of this application is nothing, but an abuse of the process of law and the same be dismissed. 17. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case. 18. A brief description as to how chronologically the Civil Suit has advanced since the same was filed by the respondents in the year 2010, has been given by me hereinabove. Perusal thereof demonstrates that after service of notice in the Civil Suit itself, the applicant herein, who is defendant before the learned Trial Court, did not appear before the learned Court below. She was ordered to be proceeded against ex parte on 24.06.2010. On her request on 07.06.2011, said order was recalled. Thereafter, when the case was listed for filing of written statement of the defendant, same was not filed despite reasonable opportunities having been granted. On 18.07.2011, Mr. Deepak Gupta, learned counsel, who was appearing for the defendant, stated before the learned Trial Court that he had no instructions from the defendant. Court ordered his Power of Attorney to be taken off the record and issued notice to the defendant for 16.08.2011. On the said date, one Shri Anish Banshtu, Advocate appeared for the defendant as vice counsel and on a request so made by the defendant, the case was ordered to be listed on 07.09.2011 by granting opportunity to the defendant to file written statement on or before the said date. On 07.09.2011, none appeared for the defendant and she was again ordered to be proceeded against ex parte. The case was ordered to be listed for ex parte evidence for 21.09.2011. Thereafter, when the matter was listed on 01.11.2011, an application was filed under Order 9, Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the defendant for setting aside ex parte order dated 07.09.2011, which was dismissed by the learned Trial Court and relevant portion of the same has already been quoted by me hereinabove. 19. Above facts demonstrates that before the learned Trial Court, the defendant was indeed playing the game of hide and seek. 19. Above facts demonstrates that before the learned Trial Court, the defendant was indeed playing the game of hide and seek. Initially, after service of notice in the Civil Suit, she did not appear and was ordered to be proceeded against ex parte. Her prayer for setting aside said ex parte order was allowed by the Court. Thereafter, written statement was not filed by her and on one date, Mr. Deepak Gupta, learned counsel appearing for her stated before the Court that he had no instructions. His Power of Attorney was struck off the record and fresh notice was issued to the defendant. Thereafter, again after service of the notice, same counsel appeared for the defendant and sought time for filing written statement. On the date fixed for this purpose, none appeared for the defendant, who was again ordered to be proceeded against ex parte. Then, an application was filed by the defendant through her counsel Mr. Deepak Gupta for recalling of said order, which stood dismissed by the learned Trial Court by passing a reasoned and speaking order. 20. The game of hide and seek being played by the defendant did not end here only. Order passed by the learned Trial Court rejecting application filed under Order 9, Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure was challenged by her before this Court by way of CMPMO No. 09 of 2012. On 12.01.2012, notice was issued to the respondents/plaintiffs and proceedings in the Civil Suit filed by the plaintiffs were stayed. I have already given details of the dates on which the matter was subsequently listed before this Court. As is evident therefrom, after 16.12.2013, the case was listed in the Court on 07.10.2016. Before proceeding further, it is relevant to mention herein that this CMPMO was also filed by the defendant/petitioner before this Court through Mr. Deepak Gupta, learned counsel. On 07.10.2016, on the request of learned counsel who appeared for the petitioner, the matter was listed for 24.11.2016. On 24.11.2016, on the request so made by learned counsel for the petitioner, to enable the learned counsel to have current instructions from the petitioner, the matter was ordered to be listed on 23.12.2016. 21. On the said date, Ms. Meera Devi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vice Mr. Deepak Gupta, stated before the Court that the matter had to be argued by Mr. 21. On the said date, Ms. Meera Devi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vice Mr. Deepak Gupta, stated before the Court that the matter had to be argued by Mr. G.C. Gupta, learned Senior Counsel. On her request, the case was ordered to be listed before the appropriate Bench in the following week. It is thereafter when the matter was listed before the Court on 11.01.2017, Ms. Meera Devi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner stated that despite written communication having been sent to the petitioner, as petitioner was not contacting her nor any instructions stood received by her, the case was ordered to be dismissed for non-prosecution. 22. The application which has been filed for recalling of the order which was passed by this Court on 11.01.2017, was filed in the Court on 20th July, 2018. In other words, this application has been filed after almost one year and seven months as from the date when the case was ordered to be dismissed for non-prosecution. The reasons which have been mentioned in the application for recalling said order are that after the matter was admitted for hearing, the applicant or her Attorney had no intimation as to when the case was to be listed for hearing and the alleged communication sent by her counsel was never received by her. It is further mentioned in the application that the applicant on one or two occasions visited the office of her counsel, but the counsel was not available. It is further mentioned in para-4 of the application that on 28th June, 2018, when the Attorney of the applicant happened to be present in District Court premises at Chakkar, he came to know that the matter was fixed for ex parte evidence of the non-applicants/respondents in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No. 5, Shimla. Thereafter, applicant immediately contacted her counsel and came to know about the fate of the case. It is further mentioned in the application that it is settled law that when a counsel pleads no instructions, fresh notice is required to be issued to the party by the Court, but no such notice was received by the applicant or issued by the Court. It is further mentioned in the application that the order which was passed by this Court on 11.01.2017 is therefore perverse. 23. It is further mentioned in the application that the order which was passed by this Court on 11.01.2017 is therefore perverse. 23. To recapitulate, the contention of the applicant before this Court is that she was never contacted by her counsel during the pendency of the petition before this Court. After the case was admitted, she did not receive any communication purportedly sent to her by the counsel. On 28th June, 2018, when her Attorney happened to be in District Court premises at Chakker, there he came to know that the Civil Suit was listed for ex parte evidence of the plaintiffs and thereafter when applicant contacted her counsel, she came to know that the case was dismissed for non-prosecution on 11.01.2017. The averments so made in the application are supported on the affidavit of one Shri Diwan Chand, Special Power of Attorney holder of applicant Savtri Devi. 24. Record suggests that after the CMPMO was dismissed by this Court for nonprosecution on 11.01.2017, the matter was listed before the Trial Court on 21.01.2017, on which date, learned Court issued notices for the presence of parties for 24.03.2017. The case was thereafter listed for recording of ex parte evidence on 18.05.2017 and from the said date, the matter was listed for the said purpose on 15.06.2017, as the Presiding Officer was on medical leave. On 15.06.2017, the case was ordered to be listed on 27.07.2017 for recording the ex parte evidence. On 27.07.2017, learned Trial Court passed the following order: “27.7.2017 Present: Sh. Pawan Kaprate, Ld. Adv. For the plaintiff. Defendant already ex parte. (Sh. Deepak Gupta, Ld. Adv. For the defendant.) Though ex parte). Three PWs namely Sh. Shayam Lal from the O/o Sub-Registrar, Shimla, Rural, Sh. Ashok Chaudhary, Document Writer, DC Office, Shimla and Mrs. Pooja Sharma, Gram Panchayat, Ghanahatti, Shimla present in person. However, at this stage, the Ld. Counsel for the defendant have moved an application under Order 17, Rule 1 & 2 read with Section 151 of CPC for adjournment of the present case on the ground that the Ld. Ashok Chaudhary, Document Writer, DC Office, Shimla and Mrs. Pooja Sharma, Gram Panchayat, Ghanahatti, Shimla present in person. However, at this stage, the Ld. Counsel for the defendant have moved an application under Order 17, Rule 1 & 2 read with Section 151 of CPC for adjournment of the present case on the ground that the Ld. Counsel for the defendant have challenged the order of this Court before the Hon’ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh, but, due to some unavoidable circumstances, the said petition was dismissed for non-prosecution and now the defendant is in process of challenging/filing application for restoration before the Hon’ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh and therefore, he seeks adjournment of the present case for today. The perusal of record shows that vide order dated 7.9.2011, the defendant was proceeded against ex parte and thereafter an application under Order 9, Rule 7 read with Section 151 of CPC was filed on behalf of the defendant. The application of the defendant for setting aside ex parte order dated 7.9.2011 was dismissed. Against the said order, the defendant has moved a Revision Petition before the Hon’ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh. But, vide order dated 11.1.2017, the said petition was dismissed for non-prosecution. Today, by separate application under Order 17, Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC, the Ld. Counsel for the defendant is seeking adjournment on the ground that the defendant is in process of challenging/filing application for the restoration of the said petition before the Hon’ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh. Hence, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the present application is allowed in the interest of justice. PWs present are discharged for today. Let, the matter be now listed for placing on record any document showing that the defendant moved an appropriate application for restoration of the petition for 25.08.2017.” 25. A perusal of this order demonstrates that as on 27.07.2017, Mr. PWs present are discharged for today. Let, the matter be now listed for placing on record any document showing that the defendant moved an appropriate application for restoration of the petition for 25.08.2017.” 25. A perusal of this order demonstrates that as on 27.07.2017, Mr. Deepak Gupta, learned counsel appeared on behalf of the defendant before the learned Trial Court and stated that the petition which was filed by the defendant, stood dismissed for non-prosecution on account of some unavoidable reasons and defendant was in process of challenging/filing application for restoration of the same and for this, he moved an application under Order 17, Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for adjournment of the case on behalf of the defendant. The application which was filed under Order 17, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure is also on record of the learned Trial Court, which is duly signed by counsel for the defendant Mr. Deepak Gupta, Advocate. 26. Above facts demonstrate that the defendant was aware of the order which was passed by this Court dismissing her petition for non-prosecution and this is evident from proceedings which took place before the learned Trial Court on 27.07.2017, when an application was filed by the defendant through her counsel praying for adjournment of the matter before the learned Trial Court. Incidentally, these facts have been conspicuously concealed by the applicant in the present application and a false and concocted story has been cooked up that the defendant only came to know about the dismissal of her application for non-prosecution when her counsel happened to visit the District Court at Chakkar on 28.01.2018, he came to know that the matter was being taken up for recording ex parte evidence of the plaintiffs in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No. 5, Shimla. 27. Nothing is mentioned in the application as to what was the occasion for the Attorney of the applicant, who happened to be her son, to be present in the said Court on the said date. It cannot be termed to be a mere “coincidence”. By no stretch of imagination, Courts can be termed to be premises which a person ordinarily happens to visit in normal routine. It cannot be termed to be a mere “coincidence”. By no stretch of imagination, Courts can be termed to be premises which a person ordinarily happens to visit in normal routine. This demonstrates that the methodology which is being adopted by the applicant/defendant in the present case is that very conveniently she is delaying the adjudication of the Civil Suit by either not putting in appearance before the Courts or by having the matter dismissed for non-prosecution and then by moving an application praying for setting aside of the said order on the ground that it is the duty of the Court to serve notice upon the party in case her counsel pleads no instructions. The mockery of the system which the applicant is making is further evident from the fact that same counsel is representing the applicant since initial stage. Same counsel pleads no instructions at one stage and then moves an application for recalling of the said order, which in my considered view, is nothing but an abuse of the process of Court. 28. Coming to the judgments relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel for the applicant, in my considered view, the law as has been laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court cannot be of any rescue to the applicant herein in the peculiar facts of this case. 29. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Malkiat Singh and another Vs. Joginder Singh and others (1998) 2 Supreme Court Cases 206 in the peculiar facts of that case, after coming to the conclusion that perusal of the record demonstrated that appellants before the Hon’ble Supreme Court were neither careless nor negligent in defending the case and had engaged a counsel and were following the proceedings, held that after their counsel had reported no instructions, the Court in the interest of justice, should have had issued notices to them. 30. Similar view was taken by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Tahil Ram Issardas Sadarangani and others Vs. Ram Chand Issardas Sadarangani and another, 1993 Supp. (3) Supreme Court Cases 256 and Sushila Narahari and others Vs. Nanda Kumar and another, (1996) 5 Supreme Court Cases 529. 31. Coming to the facts of the present case, here it is not as if the present applicant was taken by surprise by the dismissal of the case for non-prosecution on account of her counsel pleading no instructions. (3) Supreme Court Cases 256 and Sushila Narahari and others Vs. Nanda Kumar and another, (1996) 5 Supreme Court Cases 529. 31. Coming to the facts of the present case, here it is not as if the present applicant was taken by surprise by the dismissal of the case for non-prosecution on account of her counsel pleading no instructions. This is a game plan being deployed by the applicant since the inception of the suit as is evident from the record of the case, as it stands enumerated hereinabove. It is apparent and evident that the applicant was not only aware about as to how the matter was proceeding in this Court, but she was having close watch on the proceedings which were continuing in the Trial Court, which is evident from the fact that her counsel as also her Attorney “coincidentally” happened in the Court concerned on the date when the matter was being listed before the learned Trial Court. Therefore, in my considered view, the judgments so relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel are of no assistance in the peculiar facts of the case where the conduct of the applicant is not bonafide. 32. In view of the discussion held hereinabove, this Court finds no infirmity with order dated 11.01.2017, vide which, the petition was dismissed for non-prosecution, in the peculiar facts of this case, nor the application has been filed by the applicant bonafidely, as she has not approached the Court with clean hands and incorrect averments have been made in the application for recalling of order which was passed by this Court on 11.01.2017. Accordingly, this application is dismissed with costs of Rs.25,000/-. Miscellaneous applications, if any, also stands disposed of.