Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioners have entered into an agreement to sale with the complainant after receiving a major part of the consideration with a stipulation that the sale-deed will be executed within one year. When the petitioners had not executed the sale deed, the complainant preferred a civil suit for specific performance and permanent injunction as the petitioners were selling the property to some other persons. The said suit was dismissed on 22.12.2017 against which an appeal was preferred which has been allowed vide order/judgment dated 05.09.2018. Aggrieved by the order/judgment in the appeal, the petitioners preferred a second appeal before this Court which was dismissed for want of prosecution in which a recall application has been filed and the second appeal has not been restored till date. It is further submitted that in the second appeal, on the recall application, notice was issued to the respondent no. 2, who has filed his counter afÏdavit mentioning therein that the summoning orders have been issued against the petitioners i.e. for the first time, the petitioners came to know about the summoning order. The summoning order has been passed without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and hence, bad in the eyes of law.
