HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - A No. - 10388 of 2025 Court No. - 6 HON'BLE JASPREET SINGH, J. 1. Heard Shri Ishan Singh Popli, learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. By means of the instant petition, the petitioners seek the following reliefs, which are reproduced as under:- "i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing of the impugned Order dated 19/05/2025 passed by the Learned Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Lucknow in Miscellaneous Case No.473 of 2025 titled as Smt Rehana Parveen VS Shri Anjeev Kumar Srivastava and others, a Certified copy of the Order dated 19/05/2025 is contained in Annexure No.1 to this petition. ii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Learned Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) Lucknow to decide the P.A. Execution Case No.81 of 2021/Old P.A. Case No.13 of 2011 titled as P.N. Srivastava and another VS Zakir Hussain and another which is pending since 2011 under Section 23 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 expeditiously preferably within a period of three months in accordance with law." 3. At the very outset, Shri Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners has fairly stated that he does not wish to press his first relief rather he may be Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ratnesh Chandra, Aditi Shree, Ishan Singh Popli Counsel for Respondent(s) : Shri Anjeev Kumar And 2 Others .....Petitioner(s) Smt. Rehana Parveen And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) permitted to file his objections and contest the same before the Prescribed Authority, however, he states that his execution case filed under Section 23 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (for short, 'the Act of 1972') may be expedited and within some time frame, it may be ordered to be decided. 4. The Court has considered the instant petition only in respect of the relief No.2. 5. The record indicates that the petitioners had filed an application under Section 21(1)(a) of the Act of 1972 which came to be allowed by the Prescribed Authority vide order dated 24.08.2011. 6. The record further indicates that the private-respondent No.2 had moved an application for recall of the ex-parte order dated 24.08.2011 which came to be dismissed which was assailed before a Coordinate Bench of this Court in WRIT-A No.1000094 of 2012 and the said petition also came to be dismissed by means of the order dated 17.12.2024 [Neutral Citation No.-2024:AHC-LKO:84668]. 7. Thereafter, once the execution proceedings were started, an attempt was made to seek review of the order passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court, which also came to be dismissed on 23.01.2025. Thereafter, at the behest of the private-respondent No.1, an application for impleadment has sought to be entertained by the Prescribed Authority and it is in this context that the order dated 19.05.2025 was put to challenge, however, the said application is already engaging the attention of the Prescribed Authority. 8. It has also been pointed out that in pursuance of the order passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court dated 17.12.2024, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that possession of some part of the property, which was the subject matter of the execution, has been handed over to the petitioners. 9. Considering the aforesaid, at this stage, this Court is not inclined to delve into the merits as that would impact the proceedings, hence, it will be open for the petitioners to file their objections to the said impleadment WRIA No. 10388 of 2025 2 application registered as Misc. Case No.473 of 2025 and the Prescribed Authority, who is seized with the matter shall ensure that after affording full opportunity of hearing, the application for impleadment shall be decided. Moreover, the execution case shall be decided and taken to its logical conclusion, preferably within a period of two month from the date, a certified copy of this order is placed before the Executing Court in P.A. Execution Case No.81 of 2021 and the Prescribed Authority in Misc. Case No.473 of 2025. 10. It is made clear that the Court has not examined the case of either of the parties on merits and the Prescribed Authority and the Executing Court shall decide the matter strictly in accordance with law. 11. With the aforesaid, the petition is disposed of. October 27, 2025 Rakesh/- WRIA No. 10388 of 2025 3 (Jaspreet Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAKESH PRAJAPAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench