HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 6640 of 2025 Court No. - 6 HON'BLE JASPREET SINGH, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Notice on behalf of respondent no. 1 has been accepted by Sri Hemant Pandey, learned counsel. Sri Avinash Chandra, learned counsel who has put in appearance on behalf of respondent no. 2 and has filed his vakalatnama which is taken on record. 2. By means of the instant petition, the petitioner states that an application has been moved by the petitioner seeking recall of the order dated 08.10.2025 on 15.10.2025 and despite the same, neither the same has been registered nor any further proceedings have been taken forward and in such circumstances, a direction has been sought that his application for recall may be considered and decided within a time span to be fixed by the Court. 3. Sri Avinash Chandra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 2 submits that the petitioner is misusing the proceedings, despite sufficient notice, she did not contest, however, once the final order dated 08.10.2025 was passed, immediately thereafter the application is said to have been moved. Deliberately, the same is being delayed. 4. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is urged that an attempt is being made to linger on the proceedings which is not in the interest of justice, accordingly, as far as a direction from the Court for expediting the hearing of the application is concerned, he has no objection but he still submits that some terms be placed so that the petitioner may not misuse the proceedings. 5. Considering the averments made in the petition, the Court had called upon the learned Standing Counsel to seek instructions and had posted the matter after recess. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Syed Asaghar Mehdi, Aynesh Rajan Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Avinash Chandra Priyanka Singh .....Petitioner(s) The Rent Authority,Addl. District Magistrate(East) Lko. And Another .....Respondent(s) 6. In furtherance thereof, when the matter was taken up, Sri Hemant Pandey, learned Standing Counsel has provided a copy of the written instructions under the signatures of the Additional District Magistrate, City (East) dated 10.11.2025 indicating that the case of the petitioner i.e. relating to the application for recall has also been registered and notices have been issued fixing 21st November, 2025 as the next date. 7. Taking note of the aforesaid and the fact that the petitioner and the private respondent no. 2 both are present before this Court, hence, there is no purpose of keeping the petition pending especially in light of the limited prayer made, accordingly, in the given facts and circumstances, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent no. 1 that he shall decide the application for recall on the next date fixed, provided the respondent, if he wishes to file any reply to the said recall, shall be done at least 3 days prior to the next date fixed i.e. by 18th November, 2025 and in furtherance thereof if the petitioner wishes to file a response, the same can be done up to the date fixed. The respondent no. 1 is directed to ensure that none of the parties abuse the liberty granted and an endevour be made to decide the said application either on the date fixed or if not possible for some reason then within two weeks thereafter. 8. It is also made clear that in case if any party chooses to misuse the proceedings, the respondent no. 1 shall be well within his rights to impose realistic costs. 9. With the aforesaid, the present petition is disposed of. 10. It is also made clear that this Court has not examined the case of either of the parties on merits and the court concerned shall decide the recall application strictly in accordance with law. November 14, 2025 Asheesh A227 No. 6640 of 2025 2 (Jaspreet Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- ASHEESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench