Abhinava Upadhya, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioner Mr. Mahendra Pratap Singh holding brief of Sri A.K. Tiwari and Sri A.R. Masoodi for opposite parties.
(2.) THE writ petition was filed by the petitioner challenging the order of dismissal dated 28.6.1995. THE writ petition was allowed vide judgment and order dated 14.11.2006 passed by Hon'ble Rakesh Sharma, J. THE recital in the judgment is that the matter has remained pending for some time and inspite of opportunity being granted to the respondents, no counter affidavit was filed and, therefore, the averments made in the writ petition were to be taken to be true and, therefore, the writ petition was allowed. Today, before me a recall/review application is for consideration. Learned Counsel for the applicant Sri A.R. Masoodi very fairly con cedes that the Court fee for the review application although has not been paid, yet heading of the application is review and, therefore, the application be treated as review application.
(3.) ON the other hand, learned Counsel for the petitioner Sri Mahendra Pratap Singh holding brief of Sri A.K. Tiwari vehemently contends that the said application is not as per rules of the Allahabad High Court Rules and, therefore, it cannot be treated to be a review application. He further contends that no relief can be granted even if the application is treated to be a recall application in terms of the judgment in the case of State of U.P. v. Brahm Datt. Sharma and another, AIR 1987 SC 943 in which it has been held that in a decided writ peti tion, recall application is not maintainable. There appears to be force in the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner and, therefore, the application has no merits and it deserves to be rejected.;