Allahabad High Court
Sudha Realtors Pvt. Ltd. Thru. ... vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Housing ... on 2 September, 2025
Author: Jaspreet Singh
Bench: Jaspreet Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:52011
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 5136 of 2025
Sudha Realtors Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Authorized Representative Mr. Kamlesh Pandey
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Housing And Urban Planning Deptt. Lko. And 2 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)
:
Anup Kumar Kashyap, Divyansh Singh, Rishabh Kapoor
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
C.S.C.
Court No. - 7
HON'BLE JASPREET SINGH, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Notice on behalf of the respondent No.1 has been accepted by the office of the Chief Standing Counsel. Shri Shobhit Mohan Shukla, learned counsel has accepted notice on behalf of the respondent No.2.
2. By means of the instant petition, the petitioner prays for the following relief:-
"i. Issue an order or direction to the Opposite Party No.2 to decide the petitioner's Recall Application dated 04.08.2025, filed against the ex-parte judgment and order dated 16.09.2020 passed in Complaint No.LKO187/11/0913/2019 (Pradiwan Baranwal vs. Sudha Realtors Pvt. Ltd.), within a fixed and reasonable time period as may be stipulated by this Hon'ble Court; and
ii. Stay the effect and operation of the ex-parte judgment and order dated 16.09.2020 as well as all consequential proceedings, including the Recovery Certificate dated 11.02.2025, during the pendency of the present petition and until final decision of the Recall Application dated 04.08.2025 by Respondent No.2."
3. Learned State Counsel as well as learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has raised objections that three complaints came to be decided by a composite order dated 16.09.2020. Against one of the cases, the petitioner had preferred a writ petition before the Division Bench of this Court bearing WRIT-C No.7827 of 2025 which came to be dismissed by order dated 13.08.2025. In respect of the other cases which came to be decided, the petitioner has already filed an appeal and in respect of the present case which is against Pradiwan Baranwal, the petitioner is said to have moved an application for recall along with an application seeking condonation of delay, a copy of which has been brought on record as Annexure No.1.
4. A specific query was put to the learned counsel for the petitioner as to what is the status and what is the date fixed. However, it could not be informed as to when the said application came to be rejected, whether the notices have been issued to the private-respondent and what is the date fixed.
5. A reference has been made to Para-18 to 20 and 27 to indicate that the application of the petitioner has not been acted upon.
6. Be that as it may, in absence of clear averments, this Court is not inclined to entertain the petition, however, leaving it open for the petitioner to move an appropriate application before the respondent No.2 raising his objections if so and needless to say if any application has been filed which counsel for the respondent No.2 states that it has done online, apparently it must have been registered. In case, if it has not been so done, the respondent No.2 shall ensure that the application is registered and at least and even if there is any objection regarding the maintainability, the same shall be considered and decided.
7. It is made clear that the Court has not examined the case of either of the parties on merits and the respondent No.2 shall take recourse as may be available in law.
8. With the aforesaid observations, the petition is disposed of.
(Jaspreet Singh,J.)
September 2, 2025
Rakesh/-
