- (1.) HEARD Sri Kshitij Shailendra, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Arvind Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent and perused the record.
(2.) THE writ petition is directed against order dated 28.11.2011 passed by Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Hathras rejecting petitioner's recall application.
(3.) IT is evident from record that P.A. Case No.17 of 1992 instituted by respondent -landlord for release of shop in dispute under Section 21(1)(a) Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1972") was allowed ex parte vide order dated 30.5.2006. The petitioner thereafter moved recall application no. U.P.U.B. 6/07 dated 15.3.2007 for recall of ex parte order and to decide release application on merits again. This application was considered by Court below and it was found that record of P.A.Case No.17 of 1992 was summoned in original suit no.1043 of 1989 pending in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) and therefrom the record was received back and thereafter it was summoned in the Appellate Court and the record was received back ultimately on 18.11.2005. The Court fixed 24.12.2005, on which date Presiding Officer was on leave, hence 13.1.2006 was fixed for hearing on the application. On 13.01.2006, all the counsels were present, the matter was adjourned to 28.1.2006, on which date also all the counsels were present and the matter was adjourned to 26.2.2006 for arguments. Again on 26.2.2006, being Sunday, the matter was taken up on 27.2.2006 and the parties were present but the case was directed to be placed on 4.3.2006. On 4.3.2006, the applicant moved adjournment application which was allowed and 11.4.2006 was fixed for hearing. Again 11.4.2006 being holiday, the matter was taken up on 12.4.2006 and counsel for the applicant was present but the matter was adjourned to 10.5.2006. In the presence of counsel on 10.5.2006, the case was adjourned to 18.5.2006. Now it is on 18.5.2006 when the applicant was present but other side was absence hence the suit proceeded ex parte and on 24.5.2006, the application was heard ex parte and judgment was reserved fixing 27.5.2006 for delivery of judgment. On 27.5.2006, Presiding Officer was on leave, therefore, 30.5.2006 was fixed for delivery of the order which was ultimately delivered on 30.5.2006. The Court below has observed that it was open to the counsel for the petitioner to put in appearance and seek recall of ex parte order dated 18.5.2006, but no such attempt was made and since the order was passed after the counsel for the petitioner has put in appearance and thereafter he absented without any information and no attempt was made for recall of Court's order of ex parte, it is evident that application for recall is nothing but an attempt to delay the proceedings. These facts are not disputed.;