JUDGMENT B. Amit Sthalekar, J.: - One J.S.C.C. Suit No.13 of 2003 was filed by Kayamuddin against Kishun and Kishor. The suit was dismissed by order dated 17.5.2007. The plaintiff filed a recall application, which was allowed by order dated 9.2.2009 and the matter was remanded to the trial court for recording a finding as to whether apart from the provisions of Section 20 (4) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 whether the defendants came within the definition of family. The trial court reconsidered the matter and ultimately decreed the suit by judgment and decree dated 14.2.2011. 2. Aggrieved, the defendants-petitioners filed a Revision No.06 of 2011, which was dismissed by order dated 31.1.2012. A recall application was filed on 30.3.2012, which has also been dismissed by the revisional court by order dated 20.7.2013. The only ground taken by the petitioner in the present writ petition challenging the order dated 20.7.2013 is that the earlier order dated 31.1.2012 was ex parte as the petitioner, who was the pairokar of the suit could not attend the proceedings on 31.1.2012 as he was suffering from Jaundice. Neither has any medical certificate been filed along with this recall application nor any other documents to establish that he was actually suffering from Jaundice and therefore could not attend the proceeding on 31.1.2012. 3. In this view of the matter, the order of the revisional court dismissing the recall application could not be faulted as it was for the defendants-petitioners to establish that he has a genuine reason for not appearing before the Court during the proceeding on 31.1.2012. 4. For the reasons stated above, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order dated 20.7.2013. The writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. Petition accordingly dismissed.