Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:40043 Court No. - 7 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 3710 of 2024 Petitioner :- Jalandhar Singh Respondent :- Seth Ghanshyam Das Murarka Estate Thru. Power Attorney (General ) Balgovind Yadav Counsel for Petitioner :- Sameer Singh,Maninder Singh,Sakshi Singh Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging an order dated 27.3.2024, whereby directions were issued for proceeding in a case ex parte against the petitioner as well as the order dated 10.4.2024, whereby the application for recall was also rejected and the subsequent order dated 22.5.2024, whereby the revision preferred by the petitioner was dismissed. 3. The facts in brief are that the proceedings were initiated by the respondent against the petitioner for rent and ejectment, which was registered as S.C.C. Case No. 02 of 2016. An order came to be passed on 19.05.2017 closing the right of the petitioner to file a written statement and thereafter, on 01.09.2017, the suit was decreed. Subsequently, in Misc. Case No. 74 of 2018, the suit was restored. However, no written statement was filed even after the restoration which led to passing of an order dated 26.5.2023, whereby the right to file a written statement was closed once again and directions were issued for proceeding ex parte. The petitioner had moved an application for recall of the said order, which was allowed on a cost of Rs. 5,000/- on 12.12.2023 on the condition that if the written statement is not filed or the cost is not paid, the order shall become infructuous automatically. It was recorded that the petitioner neither paid the cost nor filed written statement, however, moved an application for reducing the cost of Rs. 5,000/- to Rs. 2,000/-. It is further recorded that once again, the petitioner did not attend the proceedings which led to passing of an order dated 27.3.2024 for proceeding ex parte. The petitioner once again moved an application for recall of the order dated 27.3.2024 which was dismissed by observing that the petitioner had neither filed a written statement nor had deposited the cost. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the written statement was filed. However, the trial court rejected the said application. The petitioner preferred a revision against the said order, which too has been dismissed, noticing the conduct of the petitioner in the proceedings initiated in the year 2017. 5. Considering the fact that the entire proceedings are reflective of the state of mind of the petitioner, who has adopted all the tactics for delaying the proceedings, I do not see any reason to exercise my extraordinary jurisdiction with the impugned orders. 6. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed with a direction to conclude the hearing in the SCC suit, if already pending, within a period of four months from today. Order Date :- 14.7.2025 Shravan Digitally signed by :- SHRAVAN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench