HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 6285 of 2026 Court No. - 5 HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J. 1. Heard Sri Prateeyush Kumar Pathak, learned counsel for the defendant- petitioner-judgment debtors. 2. In view of the order which is being proposed to be passed, notices are not being issued to the respondent-plaintiff-decree holders. 3. The case of the defendant-petitioner-judgment debtors is that the original plaintiff-respondent late Prem Bihari Sharma instituted a suit being O.S. No. 343 of 1984 before the Court of learned Additional Civil Judge, Mathura seeking a decree of possession over the immovable property which came to be decreed on 18.01.1993 thereafter a Civil Appeal No. 26 of 1993 was preferred by the petitioner. In the said appeal, an interim order was passed, however, on 19.02.2013, the appeal was dismissed for non presence and a restoration application under Order 41 Rule 19 CPC came to be preferred and in the meantime, several legal heirs of the deceased decree holder died. The restoration application being Misc. Case No 22 of 2013 is pending. That despite the restoration application remain pending an Execution Case No. 13 of 2021 came to be preferred by the decree holders to which objection was filed by the petitioner-judgment debtors on 20.03.2023 and an application was also filed and on 06.02.2026, the case was transferred from the Court of learned Civil Judge (S.D.)-II to the learned Civil Judge (S.D.)-Vth and on 16.02.2026 the learned court directed the office to inform the parties with regard to the same and on 18.02.2026 an incorrect report came to be marked by the office that compliance of General Rule 89A of the General Rules (Civil), 1957 has been done. On the next date i.e. 19.02.2026, the Civil Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Bharat Jain, Peeyush Kumar Pathak, Prateeyush Kumar Pathak Counsel for Respondent(s) : Prayag Narayan Sharma (Since Deceased) And 2 Others .....Petitioner(s) Prem Bihari Sharma (Since Deceased) And 8 Others .....Respondent(s) Judge (S.D.) Vth relying upon the report passed the order that compliance be done and issued warrant of possession against the petitioner-judgment debtors. The petitioner-judgment debtors thereafter preferred a recall application on 19.02.2026. 4. Prayer in the present petition is for setting aside the order dated 19.02.2026 and to decide the recall application dated 23.03.2026 and 19.02.2026. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once the recall application is pending then the same is to be decided. 6. Considering the submission so made across the bar, the petition stands disposed of requiring the court below to decide the recall application which is stated to be pending on the next date fixed and, in case, it is not decided on the next date, on the other date so fixed without granting unnecessary adjournments. 7. Needless to point out that this Court has not adjudicated on the merits of the matter. May 6, 2026 Rajesh A227 No. 6285 of 2026 2 (Vikas Budhwar,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAJESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad