Sudha Realtors Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Authorized… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2025)

Sudha Realtors Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Authorized… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Neither of the two reliefs prayed for was granted: no fixed-time direction to decide the Recall Application and no stay of the ex-parte order dated 16.09.2020 or the Recovery Certificate dated 11.02.2025. The petitioner was left open to move an appropriate application before respondent No.2, who is to ensure registration of the application and consideration/decision of any objection, including maintainability.

Issue for consideration

Whether an order or direction should issue to respondent No.2 to decide the petitioner's Recall Application dated 04.08.2025 within a fixed and reasonable time period. +1 more

Court's answer

If the recall application filed online has not been registered, respondent No.2 shall ensure it is registered, and even any objection regarding maintainability shall be considered and decided.

Ratio / Principle

In absence of clear averments, the Court was not inclined to entertain the petition, leaving it open for the petitioner to move an appropriate application before respondent No.2 raising objections.

Key takeaways

The Court did not examine the case of either party on merits; respondent No.2 shall take recourse as may be available in law.ratio¶20
With the aforesaid observations, the petition was disposed of.ratio¶21

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench), Jaspreet Singh, J. — Matters under Article 227 No. 5136 of 2025 (Sudha Realtors Pvt. Ltd. thru authorized representative Kamlesh Pandey v. State of U.P. thru Prin. Secy. Housing and Urban Planning Deptt. Lko. and 2 others), disposed of on September 2, 2025. Petitioner sought (i) a direction to respondent No.2 to decide, within a fixed and reasonable time, its Recall Application dated 04.08.2025 filed against the exparte judgment and order dated 16.09.2020 passed in Complaint No.LKO187/11/0913/2019 (Pradiwan Baranwal vs. Sudha Realtors Pvt. Ltd.), and (ii) a stay of that order and all consequential proceedings, including the Recovery Certificate dated 11.02.2025. Context: three complaints were decided by composite order dated 16.09.2020; against one case the petitioner's writ petition WRIT-C No.7827 of 2025 was dismissed on 13.08.2025; an appeal was already filed for the other cases; and recall and condonation-of-delay applications stood for the present case. On specific query, counsel could not state when the recall application was rejected, whether notices issued to the private respondent, or the date fixed. Finding absence of clear averments, the Court declined to entertain the petition, left the petitioner free to raise objections before respondent No.2, directed that the online-filed application be ensured registered and that even maintainability objections be considered and decided, expressly disclaimed any examination of merits, and disposed of the petition, respondent No.2 to take recourse as available in law.

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

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.

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.

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 exparte 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."

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

A227 No. 5136 of 2025

2

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

With the aforesaid observations, the petition is disposed of .

(Jaspreet Singh,J.)

September 2, 2025 Rakesh/-

Digitally signed by :- RAKESH PRAJAPAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench