HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 7001 of 2016 Court No. - 9 HON'BLE ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL, J. 1. List revised. No one is present on behalf of petitioner to press the writ petition. This case is of the year 2016 and it has been listed today under the heading of 'infructuous cases'. 2. This is plaintiff's petition. In the suit filed by plaintiff, an amendment application was moved which was allowed by trial court on 05.11.2014. As the amendment was not carried within time, the trial court on 20.11.2014 closed the opportunity of amendment. Thereafter, recall application was moved for recalling the order dated 20.11.2014 and condoning the delay in amending the plaint. The said recall application was rejected against which a revision was preferred which has also been rejected. Hence, the present writ petition. 3. After going through the records of the case, I find that trial court should not have taken a hyper technical ground in rejecting the recall application as amendment application was already allowed on 05.11.2014 and amendment could not be carried out by plaintiff. The trial court should have allowed the recall application with cost. 4. In view of said fact, the orders impugned 27.03.2015, 14.05.2015 and 13.07.2016 are hereby set aside. The recall application stands allowed. 5. The plaintiff-petitioner is permitted to carry out the amendment in the plaint subject to deposit of cost of Rs.10,000/- to defendants-respondents. In case, the said amount is paid to defendants, within 15 days from today, the plaintiff may carry out the necessary amendment in the plaint. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ram Kesh, Rishi Kant Rai Counsel for Respondent(s) : , Kailash Nath Smt. Nirmala Devi .....Petitioner(s) Chandar And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) 6. The writ petition stands partly allowed. October 8, 2026 (V. S. SINGH) A227 No. 7001 of 2016 2 (Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.) Digitally signed by :- VIDYA SAGAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad