JUDGMENT Sudhir Agarwal, J. 1. This is an application seeking recall of order dated 28.9.2012, whereby writ petition was dismissed on merits, though in absence of learned counsel for petitioner. 2. Cause shown for non appearance is sufficient. 3. Order dated 28.9.2012 is hereby recalled. 4. This application, accordingly, stands allowed. Sudhir Agarwal, J. 1. The order dated 28.9.2012 having been recalled vide order of date passed on Recall Application, the writ petition is restored to its original number. 2. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the record. 3. The matter relates to House No. 1005/1, Civil Lines, Jhansi, which is claimed to be owned by petitioner and respondent no. 2 was tenant in the said accommodation. Petitioner served a notice determining tenancy of respondent no. 2 on 21.8.1990 on the ground of structural alteration,? diminishing the value, and disfiguring the premises in dispute as also arrears of rent. Thereafter, Small Cause Suit No. 67 of 1990 was filed by petitioner seeking eviction of respondent no. 2 from accommodation in question. The suit was decreed by Trial Court vide judgment dated 19.11.1992 whereagainst respondent no. 2 preferred S.C.C. Revision No. 144 of 1992 which has been allowed vide judgment dated 28.1.1993 passed by District Judge, Jhansi on the ground that suit was decreed on account of default in payment of rent, though in the plaint, no such allegations were made and secondly that a sale-deed of the accommodation in question was executed in favour of Smt. Sarojkanta on 19.4.1979. Petitioner instituted Original Suit No. 109 of 1984 for cancellation of sale-deed which was dismissed vide judgment dated 30.3.1989 holding that there was a partition of family property between the petitioner and her brothers in 1967 and petitioner's brothers Abdul Aleem and petitioner both executed sale-deed in favour of Sarojkanta though petitioner was not owner of property in dispute at all. Trial Court having failed to consider this aspect has committed patent error. It is not disputed by learned counsel for petitioner that the Original Suit No. 109 of 1984 was decided against petitioner on 30.3.1989 by Additional District Judge by dismissing the same and that is how Smt. Sarojkanta became owner of property in dispute. That being so, I do not find any error apparent on the face of record in the judgment impugned in this writ petition warranting interference. 4. The writ petition lacks merit. Dismissed. 5. That being so, I do not find any error apparent on the face of record in the judgment impugned in this writ petition warranting interference. 4. The writ petition lacks merit. Dismissed. 5. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.