HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 7183 of 2025 Court No. - 5 HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J. 1. Heard Sri Sunil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri Yogesh Kumar Awasthi, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondent. 2. In view of the order proposed to be passed, requirement of issuance of notice to private respondent is dispensed with. 3. Instant petition has been filed by the petitioner praying for direction to the respondent No. 1 - Tehsildar (Judicial), Tehsil - Patti, District - Pratapgarh, to decide Recall Application No. 8210 of 2025 (Computerized Case No. T 202502570408210) - Shahida Begum Vs. Mohd. Akbal, U/S under Section 34 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, expeditiously. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that grievance of the petitioner would be sufficiently met in case respondent no. 1 - Tehsildar (Judicial), Tehsil - Patti, District - Pratapgarh, considers and decides the aforesaid case in the time bound manner. 5. Learned Standing Counsel has no objection to the aforesaid prayer. 6. It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that the application for recall is pending and the order-sheet indicates that no proceedings could take place due to call for boycott of the local bar association. The facts which are evident from the order-sheet indicates that there is frequent call by the local bar association which in fact is deprecated by this Court considering the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal Vs. Union of India and another reported in 2003 (2) SCC 45 and it is noticed that even the application for recall are not being considered and decided because of the call for boycott. 7. Such an action of the local bar association may amount to criminal contempt being a direct conflict with the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Sunil Kumar Singh, Mamta Tiwari, Vishwa Mohan Tiwari Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Shahida Begum .....Petitioner(s) Tahsildar Judicial, Tahsil Patti, Pratapgarh And Another .....Respondent(s) Court n the case of Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal (supra) and this Court leave it open for the petitioner to invoke the said jurisdiction in case they are so legally advised. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, without entering into the merits of the case, respondent no. 1 - Tehsildar (Judicial), Tehsil - Patti, District - Pratapgarh, is directed to decide Recall Application No. 8210 of 2025 (Computerized Case No. T 202502570408210) - Shahida Begum Vs. Mohd. Akbal, U/S under Section 34 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, expeditiously, say within a period of four months from the date of production of certified copy of this order, in accordance with law, if there is no legal impediment. 9. Learned counsel for petitioner undertakes that petitioner shall appear on all the dates fixed before concerned authority irrespective of the call for boycott and in case any person creates impediment in appearance this Court grants him liberty to file an application for criminal contempt. 10. The petitioner shall serve a copy of this order to the President and Secretary of local bar association for their compliance. 11. It is further directed that the parties to the case shall cooperate in expeditious disposal of the case and shall not seek any unnecessary adjournment, neither any such adjournment shall be granted by the Court concerned, except in exceptional circumstances. 12. With above observations/directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. December 15, 2025 A. Verma A227 No. 7183 of 2025 2 (Alok Mathur,J.) Digitally signed by :- ANURAG VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench