JUDGMENT Hon’ble Devendra Kumar Arora, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2. By means of present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the impugned order dated 5.1.2011, passed by Addl. District Judge, Lucknow by which Application No. C-35 moved in Rent Appeal No. 10 of 2009, Sanjay Kumar Gupta v. Raj Kishore Verma, for extension of interim order was rejected and declined to extend the interim order granted in appeal. 3. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that Raj Kishore Verma (Opposite Party No. 2) filed application under section 21 of the U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972 for the release of the accommodation under the tenancy of the petitioner and the said case was registered as P. A. Case No. 177 of 1999. The learned Prescribed Authority vide order dated 16.4.2009 allowed the application in favour of the respondents. The petitioner feeling aggrieved against the said order preferred Rent Appeal No. 10 of 2009. While entertaining the appeal, stay order was granted in favour of the appellant (petitioner herein) vide order dated 14.5.2009. The eviction of the appellant (petitioner herein) from the shop in question was stayed which was extended from time to time. 4. Further submission is that 30.11.2010 was fixed in the said appeal for hearing. Without calling out the appeal, absence of petitioner’s counsel was recorded and application for extension of interim order was rejected. The appellant (petitioner herein) on coming to know about rejection of the application for extension of interim order, moved application for recall of the said order dated 30.11.2010 mentioning therein (in para 2 of the affidavit) that junior counsel for the appellant Mr. S. Jamal Ahmad was waiting for the call of the case and was present in the Court but without calling the case the appeal was taken up and the application for extension of interim order was rejected and the interim order granted in appeal was also vacated. It was also mentioned that absence of senior counsel when the case was taken up, was not deliberate but was due to some misunderstanding. The application for recall of order dated 30.11.2010 was rejected by the learned Addl. District Judge by means of impugned order dated 5.1.2011. 5. It was also mentioned that absence of senior counsel when the case was taken up, was not deliberate but was due to some misunderstanding. The application for recall of order dated 30.11.2010 was rejected by the learned Addl. District Judge by means of impugned order dated 5.1.2011. 5. A perusal of order dated 5.1.2011 shows that when case was taken up at 11 a.m., counsel for the appellant/petitioner was not present whereas counsel for respondent was present. The case was fixed for 12.30 p.m. and again the case was called out but learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner was not present. Therefore, application for extension of stay order was rejected on account of the absence of learned counsel for appellant. Learned Addl. District Judge did not find any ground for recall of the order and rejected the application accordingly. 6. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for parties and gone through the record. 7. It appears that rent appeal was fixed for 30.11.2010 and the application for extension of interim order was also moved by the petitioner and the same was rejected on account of the absence of learned counsel for the appellant. The petitioner/applicant on coming to know about the rejection of the application for extension of the interim order, moved recall application on the same day. The moving of recall application on 30.11.2010 itself shows the bona fide of the counsel for the petitioner/appellant and it cannot be said that absence of counsel was deliberate. It was incumbent upon the learned Addl. District Judge to consider the application of petitioner/ appellant on merits instead of rejecting the same. 8. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed. The impugned Order dated 5.1.2011 is hereby quashed. The interim/stay order granted to the petitioner in Rent Appeal No. 10 of 2009 is hereby restored. Learned Addl. District Judge is directed to consider the application for extension of interim order afresh on merit. —————