HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - C No. - 9763 of 2025 Court No. - 17 HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J. 1. Heard Sri Suresh Kumar Yadav, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vishal Tahlani, learned Standing Counsel for the sole opposite party-State of U.P. 2. By means of the instant writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought issuance of a writ of mandamus to the Judge Small Causes, Lucknow to accept the cost of Rs. 2,000/- imposed vide order dated 24.02.2025 and to recall the order dated 07.02.2025. 3. The petitioner is defendant in SCC Suit No. 70 of 2008, which has been filed by the plaintiff Gyan Business Centre. The plaintiff in the suit has not been impleaded in the writ petition as an opposite party. From a copy of the order dated 24.02.2025 annexed with the writ petition it appears that due to absence of the petitioner-defendant, the opportunity to cross- examine PW1 was closed on 07.02.2025. On an application filed by the petitioner for recall of the order dated 07.2.2025, the trial court has passed an order dated 24.02.2025, allowing the application subject to payment of Rs. 2,000/- as cost, which amount was required to be deposited with District Legal Services Authority within three days. On 28/29.07.2025, the petitioner filed an application praying that the delay in depositing the amount of cost be condoned. This application does not mention any statutory provision under which it has been made. The petitioner has merely stated in the application that he could not comply with the order Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Suresh Kumar Yadav, Raj Kumar Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Abhishek Yadav .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Law Justice Govt. Lko. .....Respondent(s) dated 24.02.2025 because of numerous problems being faced in his family but he has not mentioned any specific problem due to which he could not deposit the amount of cost within a time of three days and as to why did he file the application for extension of time after five months. 4. Even ignoring the technical defects in the application like non-mention of the provision seeking extension of time, since the contents of the application are vague and the applicant has not given any specific cause explaining the delay of more than five months in filing the application, there appears to be no good ground to entertain the petition. 5. It is clarified that the court has ignored numerous technical defects in the petition so as to ascertain that the cause of justice is not defeated by the fault of the learned counsel for the petitioner like the petition is not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petition cannot be entertained in absence of the plaintiff in the suit as an opposite party, but even upon examining the substantive pleas of the petitioner, no case for interference is made out. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. October 13, 2025 Pradeep/- WRIC No. 9763 of 2025 2 (Subhash Vidyarthi,J.) Digitally signed by :- PRADEEP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench