Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:7645 Court No. - 8 Case :- WRIT - B No. - 113 of 2025 Petitioner :- Kailash Nath Respondent :- Deputy Director Of Consolidation, Shravasti And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sharvan Kumar Pandey,Prashant Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Afzal Hasan Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Notice on behalf of respondent nos.1, 2 and 3 has been accepted by the office of Chief Standing counsel. Sri Afzal Hasan learned counsel on behalf of respondent no.5 on caveat. It has been pointed out that since the respondent no.4 has sold the property to the respondent no.5, hence, it is the respondent no.5 who is main contesting party. This fact is not denied by Sri Afsal Hasan on behalf of caveator. With the consent of parties the petition is being disposed of at the admission stage itself. Under challenge is the order dated 27.12.2024 passed by the D.D.C Shrawasti whereby the application for recall moved by the petitioner has been rejected. It is submitted that the revision was pending before the D.D.C concerned, however, on account of certain exigency, the petitioner could not appear before the Court of the D.D.C on 07.03.2024 on which date the proceedings of revision were set exparte against the petitioner. The petitioner had moved an application on 04.04.2024 seeking recall of the order dated 07.03.2024. While the said application was pending unfortunately the said application for recall was also dismissed for want of prosecution on 08.08.2024. It is urged that the petitioner once again on 30.09.2024 had moved an application seeking recall of the order dated 08.08.2024 which has been considered and decided by D.D.C rejecting it on 27.12.2024. Submission is that both the application for recall has been rejected on technical grounds and the petitioner does not have any intention to delay the proceedings. As far as possible, the proceedings should be decided on merit and the petitioner is ready to compensate the private respondent for any inconvenience and the petitioner can also be put to any terms as the Court may deem just and proper and in the aforesaid circumstances, the orders impugned may be set aside. Sri Afzal Hasan learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents has fairly submitted that in so far as the orders are concerned, even if they are set aside but some order may be passed so that the petitioner may not misuse the liberty and the revision may be decided expeditiously. Considering the aforesaid stand of the respective parties and also evident from the record that the proceedings have been set exparte against the petitioner on 07.03.2024 and the application for recall was rejected on 08.08.2024 and the subsequent application has also been rejected by means of the impugned order. As the revision is to be contested and decided on merits and considering the stand of the counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the opinion that the ends of justice can be met by setting aside the order dated 07.03.2024 and 08.08.2024, upon payment of cost of Rs.5,000/- to the private respondent no.5 to be paid within ten days from today. Only if the cost is paid within the aforesaid period, the petitioner would be entitled to the benefit of this order. The parties shall appear before the D.D.C concerned on the next date fixed and after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties shall decide the revision on merits as expeditiously as possible. In case, if the petitioners tried to misuse liberty, the D.D.C concerned shall be well within its rights to proceed in accordance with law. With the aforesaid, the petition is allowed. Order Date :- 6.2.2025 Harshita Digitally signed by :- HARSHITA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench