Prakash Krishna, J.:— This is an application to recall the order dated 27.7.2012. The case has a chequered history. The background facts are in brief. A SCC suit No.19 of 1994 for arrears of rent and ejectment was instituted against the present applicant by the landlord. The said suit after contest was decreed by the judgment and decree dated 16th of November, 1996 by XIIth Additional District Judge, Kanpur. Challenging the aforesaid order, the present revision bearing defective no.75 of 1996 was filed. The revision has been allotted regular no. 538 of 2001. The revision was dismissed in default on 17th of April, 2007 but was restored subsequently by order dated 23rd of May, 2007. Thereafter, the revision was listed for final hearing but none appeared to press the revision and was dismissed in default by the following order on 6th November, 2008:- "This is a civil revision of the year 2001. The final hearing cause list has been revised. Sri Ashish Srivastava learned counsel for the respondent-landlord is present. None appears on behalf of the revisionist to press this revision. There is no illness slip on behalf of the counsel for the revisionist nor any request for adjournment has been made. This revision is accordingly dismissed for non prosecution. Interim order, already granted, if any, is vacated. No order is passed as to costs." However, the Court took a lenient view of the matter and by the order dated 22nd of May, 2009 restored the revision second time. It was listed third time on 18th January, 2011 and was dismissed by the following order:- "List revised. No one appears on behalf of the revisionist to press this revision. Learned Counsel for the respondent is present. This revision is dismissed in default. Interim order, if any, stands discharged." The aforesaid order was recalled and the revision was restored by the order dated 1st of May, 2011. Thereafter, it was listed before me and was dismissed in default on 5th December, 2011. An application to recall the aforesaid order was filed by Sri K.K. Dubey, Advocate. The application was dismissed by the following order on 27th of July, 2012:- "Heard the learned counsel for the parties. This is an application to recall the order dated 5th December, 2011 dismissing the revision in default. An application to recall the aforesaid order was filed by Sri K.K. Dubey, Advocate. The application was dismissed by the following order on 27th of July, 2012:- "Heard the learned counsel for the parties. This is an application to recall the order dated 5th December, 2011 dismissing the revision in default. Learned counsel for the opposite party submits that the applicant is in habit of getting the revision dismissed in default and then get it restored. It was stated that the revision was dismissed in default on 17.4.2007 but was restored on 23.5.2007. Second, it was dismissed in default on 6.11.2008 and was restored on 22.5.2009. Third, it was dismissed in default on 18.1.2011 and was restored on 1.3.2011. Fourth, it was dismissed in default on 5th December, 2011. Having heard the learned counsel for the applicant, I do not find any good ground to recall the order dated 5th December, 2011. It appears that leniency shown by the Court on earlier occasions in restoring the revision has not been properly understood by the applicant. It appears that the applicant is taking court proceedings just for ride. There is absolutely no justification to recall the order dated 5th December, 2011. It may be placed on record that the suit was filed in the year 1994 for eviction which was decreed on 16th November, 1996. In such matters, the tenant generally adopts such type of delaying tactics. It is one of that case. Application is rejected. Executing Court is directed to execute the decree forthwith without any delay and see that the possession is delivered to the plaintiff/decree holder within a period not later than three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order before it. The executing court shall inform about compliance of this order to the concerned District Judge." Now, the present application has been filed to recall the order dated 27th of July, 2012 by the same counsel. The said counsel is not present and Shri Ranjeet Saxena, counsel, submits that he is appearing along with Sri K.K. Dubey, Advocate. The executing court shall inform about compliance of this order to the concerned District Judge." Now, the present application has been filed to recall the order dated 27th of July, 2012 by the same counsel. The said counsel is not present and Shri Ranjeet Saxena, counsel, submits that he is appearing along with Sri K.K. Dubey, Advocate. After hearing the learned counsel for the applicant and taking note of the facts detailed above, I am of the considered view that the present application is totally malafide and no case for recall of the order dated 27th of July, 2012 and to restore the revision to its original number has been made out. The request for grant of time is rejected for the bad conduct of the applicant. The restoration application is dismissed. _____________