Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 2714 (ALL)

Mahadev Singh v. Prakash Narain

2023-12-01

JAYANT BANERJI

body2023
JUDGMENT Jayant Banerji, J. Civil Misc. Delay Condonation Application No.14 of 2022 Civil Misc. Recall Application No.15 of 2022 The aforesaid applications have been filed on 29.04.2022 seeking condonation of delay in filing the recall application, and to set aside the order dated 25.03.2022 passed by another bench of this Court dismissing the aforesaid petition as withdrawn, and for restoring it to its original number and deciding the same on merits. 2. The aforesaid applications have been filed by Sri. Arun Kumar, Sri. N.D. Shukla and Sri. Vivek Shukla, Advocates on the strength of a vakalatnama of the petitioner no.1/1-Vijay Bahadur Singh, petitioner no.1/2-Ashok Kumar Singh, petitioner no.2-Awadh Narain Singh, petitioner no. 3-Mangaru Singh, petitioner no.4-Suman Devi and petitioner no. 5 Rajan Singh. Though in the vakalatnama where the names are written, the names of petitioner no. 1/3 and petitioner no.1/4 as well as petitioner no. 6 and petitioner no. 7 are also mentioned. However, their signatures do not appear in the vakalatnama. 3. In the affidavit accompanying the aforesaid applications that is sworn by the petitioner no. 2-Awadh Narain Singh, after giving the background of the suit and the proceedings leading to the filing of this petition, it has been stated that on the date fixed in the aforesaid petition on 28.07.2005, on the statement of counsel for the petitioners, the petition was dismissed as not pressed. In the month of March 2012, the petitioner No. 1 Mahadeo Singh (since deceased), made inquiries and came to know that one Sri. Shivshankar Prasad Gupta, Advocate had filed an application for withdrawal of the aforesaid petition on 10.05.2005, on which this Court had passed the order dated 28.07.2005, dismissing the petition as not pressed. It is stated that an application for withdrawal of the order dated 28.07.2005 was filed on 09.04.2012 by Sri. Varindra Kumar Rai, Advocate, one of the original counsel in the petition and Sri. Aashish Mishra Advocate. Withdrawal Application No.15148 of 2012 was allowed by the order of this Court dated 06.08.2018, and the petition was restored to its original number. On the death of Mahadeo Singh, petitioner No. 1, a substitution application to substitute his legal representatives, was allowed by this Court by an order dated 23.03.2022. It has further been stated as follows:- "14. That, on 02.03.2022, Sri. Varindra Kumar Rai, and Sri. Ashish Mishra, Advocates, had filed an application for withdrawing the Civil Misc. On the death of Mahadeo Singh, petitioner No. 1, a substitution application to substitute his legal representatives, was allowed by this Court by an order dated 23.03.2022. It has further been stated as follows:- "14. That, on 02.03.2022, Sri. Varindra Kumar Rai, and Sri. Ashish Mishra, Advocates, had filed an application for withdrawing the Civil Misc. Petition No. 4535 of 2019, supported by an Affidavit of Awadh Narayan Singh, the petitioner no.2, verified by Sri. Ashish Mishra, Advcoate. As the photo identification centre was not operational due to Covid Protocol a declaration on behalf of Awadh Narayan Singh was signed by Sri. Ashish Mishra and Varindra Kumar Rai, Advocates as counsels for the applicant. 15. That, on 25.03.2022, a duly sworn in affidavit was filed by Awadh Narayan Singh, the petitioner no.2, in support of a Supplementary Withdrawal Application for dismissing the abovementioned petition as withdrawn. The Hon'ble Court by its order dated 25.03.2022, was pleased to allow the withdrawal application and dismiss the abovementioned petition as withdrawn. A true copy of order of this Hon'ble Court dated 25.03.2022, referred to above, is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure-'1' to the affidavit. 16. That, the deponent had come to Allahabad on 25.03.2022, as his counsel had called him for swearing of an affidavit for filing a Listing Application to get the abovementioned petition listed for hearing. The deponent who is not well versed with English language on the statement of his counsel signed the affidavit prepared by him, thinking it to be an affidavit prepared for getting the abovementioned petition listed for final hearing. 17. That, the deponent heard a rumor in his village that the abovementioned writ petition has been dismissed, as the respondent no.1 and his henchmen were again trying to start constructions over the land in dispute. 18. That, the deponent immediately left for Allahabad reaching here in the morning of 21.04.2022 and contacted his counsel Sri. Varindra Kumar Rai, Advocate, who informed him that the abovementioned petition was withdrawn on application moved by him supported by his affidavit. 19. That, the petitioner was shocked to hear that the affidavit prepared by his counsel for listing of the abovementioned petition, was in fact is an affidavit in support of a withdrawal application prepared behind the back of the petitioners. 20. 19. That, the petitioner was shocked to hear that the affidavit prepared by his counsel for listing of the abovementioned petition, was in fact is an affidavit in support of a withdrawal application prepared behind the back of the petitioners. 20. That, feeling helpless and cheated by his counsel, the deponent immediately filed an application before the Secretary, Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh, Allahabad and the President of Bar Association, High Court, Allahabad bringing to their notice the fraud and forgery committed by his counsel Sri. Varindra Kumar Rai, Advocate, by deceiving him. True copies of the application filed by the deponent before the Secretary, Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh, Allahabad and the President of Bar Association, High Court, Allahabad dated 21.04.2022, referred to above, are being filed herewith and marked as Annexure-'2' and 3' respectively to the affidavit, 21. That, after filing his complaint before the Bar Council of U.P and Bar Association High Court, Allahabad, the deponent who was feeling helpless and dejected, left for his village on 21.04.2022, itself. 22. That, the deponent who all along had been doing pairavi in the abovementioned petition, after the death of Mahadev Singh, could not explain the situation to the other petitioners. The deponent again left for Allahabad on 27.04.2022 reaching here in evening, when he contacted Sri. N.D. Shukla, Advocate and requested him to do the needful for getting the abovementioned petition restored and decided on merits. 23. That, the deponent was advised by Sri. N.D. Shukla, Advocate to immediately file a recall application for setting aside the order dated 25.03.2022. The recall application and application for condonation of delay was prepared and are being filed for recalling the order dated 25.03.2022. 24. That, it is relevant to state that no instruction was ever given by the deponent or any of the petitioners to their Counsel Sarvashri Varindra Kumar Rai, Advocate and Ashish Mishra, Advocate to withdraw the abovementioned petition get it dismissed. It appears that the earlier counsels of the petitioners are in collusion with the respondents. 25. That the short delay in filing the abovementioned recall application has been caused in the circumstances mentioned above and not due to any negligence or laches on the part of the Petitioners or his counsel. 26. That, the abovementioned petition has been filed for cancellation of the sale deed in respect to Plots in dispute. 25. That the short delay in filing the abovementioned recall application has been caused in the circumstances mentioned above and not due to any negligence or laches on the part of the Petitioners or his counsel. 26. That, the abovementioned petition has been filed for cancellation of the sale deed in respect to Plots in dispute. After dismissal of the abovementioned petition, the respondent and his alleged transferee are interfering in the possession of the applicants. The abovementioned writ petition which relates to cancellation of sale deed over the agricultural land has not become infructuous. The dismissal of the writ petition will prejudice the right of the applicants. 27. That It is, therefore, just and proper that the delay in the filing the recall application be condoned and treated to have been filed within time, the order dated 25.03.2022 passed by His Lordship Mr. Justice Salil Kumar Rai, be set aside and the abovementioned Petition be restored to its original number for being decided on merits after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties and suitable action be taken against the Advocates who have duped the Petitioners of the trust bestowed by them." 4. A counter-affidavit on behalf of respondent No.1, Prakash Narain, was filed by Sri. Vijay Anand Rai and Sri. K.N Rai, Advocates, in response to the aforesaid recall application. In that affidavit, it is stated as follows. "1. That the deponent is respondent no. 1 in the case and as such is fully acquainted with the facts deposed to herein below. 2. That the aforementioned writ petition was filed by petitioners challenging the judgment and order dated 05.11.2004 and 19.02.1996 of the courts below rejecting the claim of petitioner for setting aside judgment and decree dated 19.02.1996 passed in original suit no. 893 of 1994. 3. That due to mediation of some respectable people of the village and the relatives a dialogue for compromise in between the parties took place, as a result of which the atter was compromised by the parties in between petitioners and respondents. 4. That there were several proceedings were pending between the parties before the civil court, consolidation court and revenue court, in which the parties decided to compromise all disputes in between them as a result of which on 13.4.2005 they filed a compromise application before the Nayab Tehsildar Pindra, Varanasi, in case no. 4. That there were several proceedings were pending between the parties before the civil court, consolidation court and revenue court, in which the parties decided to compromise all disputes in between them as a result of which on 13.4.2005 they filed a compromise application before the Nayab Tehsildar Pindra, Varanasi, in case no. 167and 456 pending under section 34 L.R. Act, wherin respondent no.1 "Prakash Narain" was accepted as legal heir and representative of deceased "Jamuna" on the basis of registered will dated 5.8.1994 executed by Jamuna Devi. Similarly a compromise application duly signed by the parties and supported by affidavit was filed on 15.4.2005 before consolidation Officer, Pindra, in case of "Uma Shankar v. Jamuna", "Shanti v. Uma Shankar" and "Jamuna v. state" pending under section 12 of U.P.C.H Act and also they filed another compromise application supported with affidavit filed on 30.4.2005 in case no. 5984 under section 5 of U.P.C.H. Act. At this place it is pertinent to mention here that all the applications were allowed by the court concerned. 5. That in process of compromise between the parties in courts below, the petitioners also filed a withdrawal application on 10/11 may 2005 in present writ petition duly supported by affidavit. The aforesaid withdrawal application was allowed by this Hon'ble Court by means of order dated 28.7.2005 in presence of counsels of both sides. 6. That after the litigations were compromised by the parties the judgment and Decree dated 19.2.1996 passed in original Suit No. 893 of 1994 was given effect to and the disputed sale deed dated 10.4.1980 registered on 19.2.1994 was cancelled and the decree was satisfied by executing court on 23.2.2007. A true/photo copy of order dated 23.2.2007 passed by "Civil Judge (Junior Division), West, Varanasi" is filed herewith as Annexure No. C.A. 1 to this affidavit. 7. That at this place it is pertinent to state here that petitioners have also benefited themselves after the compromise and withdrawal of the writ petition in as much as they have obtained a registered sale deed in their favour from respondent no. 7. That at this place it is pertinent to state here that petitioners have also benefited themselves after the compromise and withdrawal of the writ petition in as much as they have obtained a registered sale deed in their favour from respondent no. 1, of the same property by means of registered sale deed in the name of "Smt. Umrai Devi W/O Uma Shankar Singh" (Petitioner No. 3), "Smt. Humrazi Devi W/O Rama Shanker Singh (Petitioner No.2) and Smt. Uma Devi W/O Mahadev Singh" (Petitioner No.1) and have also got mutated their names on the basis of aforesaid registered sale deed executed by respondent no. 1. To prove this a copy of mutation order is filed herewith as Annexure C.A. 2 to this affidavit. 8. That it appears that the intention of petitioner's has been dishonest since the very beginning in as much as after compromising the matter pending between the parties and after taking the benefit from the respondent no. 1 they filed a recall application supported by delay condonation application after lapse of 7 years, in the year 2012. 9. That however the first recall application was filed suppressing the material fact. The said recall application was even allowed on ex-parte basis on 6.8.2018 as the copy of recall application was not served upon contesting respondent. 10. That against the order dated 6.8.2018 of this Hon'ble Court (since the said order was ex-Party order) contesting respondent filed a recall application duly supported by affidavit on 3.10.2018. 11. That the said recall application was pending for disposal before this Hon'ble court, in the meantime, petitioners again filed second withdrawal application dated 2.3.2022 duly supported by affidavit of respondent no.2, who is also the deponent of present recall application. 12. That on 23.3.2022 the second withdrawal application was taken up by this Hon'ble Court for disposal. Since petitioner's himself was withdrawing his petition, contesting respondent did not pressed his recall application dated 3.10.2018, however an objection was raised by the respondent to the affect that the copy of second withdrawal application dated 2.3.2022 has not been served to the respondent. Further an objection was raised about the death of petitioner no.1, on which after court direction a copy of second recall application was served in court to respondent counsel on 23.3.2022 itself. 13. Further an objection was raised about the death of petitioner no.1, on which after court direction a copy of second recall application was served in court to respondent counsel on 23.3.2022 itself. 13. That further this court found the substitution application in respect of petitioner no.1 (copy of which was also not served on respondent) undisposed. This Hon'ble court allowed the substitution application on 23.3.2022 and after respondent objection the Hon'ble Court directed the petitioners to file supplementary withdrawal application on behalf of substituted petitioners and directed the matter to be put up on 25.3.2022. 14. That as per direction aforesaid matter was taken-up on 25.3.2022 in court, petitioner filed supplementary withdrawal application. Since the substitution was not carried out in memo of petition, keeping in view the past conduct of petitioners about filing of withdrawal application and there after recall application an objection was raised by the respondent before this Hon'ble Court, on which this Hon'ble Court allowed the withdrawal application with a direction to office to carry out the substitution in memo of petition within 24 hours, with a rider for issuance of certified copy, only after incorporation of substitution. 15. That from the averment made in the earlier paragraph of this affidavit it is crystal clear that petitioners are habitual of filing false affidavits before the court of law in the garb false and mischievous allegations for deceiving the courts. 16. That now para wise reply of the contents of second recall application (copy of which was served on respondent on 25.4.2023, that too after direction of this Hon'ble Court on 29.3.2023) are as follows -: 17. That the contents of para 1 to 7 of the affidavit filed in support of recall application (herein after referred to as affidavit) are matters of record, any averment made against record are not admitted. However it is respectfully submitted that the deponent in second withdrawal application dated 2.3.2022, supplementary withdrawal application dated 25.3.2022 and present recall application is filed by same person" Awadh Narain Singh". 18. That the contents of para 8,9,10,11,12 and 13 of the affidavit had already been suitably replied in preceding paragraphs of this affidavit. 19. That the contents of para 14 and 15 of the affidavit are admitted. 20. 18. That the contents of para 8,9,10,11,12 and 13 of the affidavit had already been suitably replied in preceding paragraphs of this affidavit. 19. That the contents of para 14 and 15 of the affidavit are admitted. 20. That the contents of para 16 of the affidavit so far as conversation between deponent and his counsel cannot be replied by respondent due to want of knowledge. At this place it is pertinent to state here that withdrawal application supported by affidavit of "Awadh Narai Singh" was filed on 2.3.2022 and thereafter supplementary withdrawal application was filed on 25.3.2022. In view of this assertion leveled in para 16 of this affidavit appears to be intentional false averment, for which petitioner is answerable to the counsel conserned and this Hon'ble Court, in as much as same amounts to fraud on court also. 21. That the contents of para 17,18 and 19 of the affidavit it is respectfully submitted that the averment in para under reply are merely a pretex for filing recall application. Further in view of allegation leveled, the counsel concerned deserves to be called for explanation. 22. That the contents of para 20,21,22 and 23 of the affidavit cannot be replied by respondent due to want of knowledge. 23. That in reply to the contents of para 24 of the affidavit it is stated that better reply of facts leveled in paragraph can be given only by concerned advocate against whom allegation have been made. Moreover the allegation of any collusion in petitioners counsel and respondent is strongly denied as incorrect and mischievous. 24. That in reply to the contents of para 25,26 and 27 of the affidavit it is stated that keeping in view the past conduct of the petitioner in filing firstly withdrawal application and thereafter recall application, leveling allegation against earlier counsel and thereafter again to subsequent counsel and filing of false affidavit with an intention to deceive the court, the present recall application is liable to be dismissed with especial cost." 5. A rejoinder affidavit on behalf of Awadh Narain Singh, petitioner No.2, has been filed by Sri. Rakesh Bahadur and Sri. Raj Kumar Upadhyay, Advocates on 7.7.2023, in which while denying the contents of the counter-affidavit, it has been stated that the petitioner No.2 would have no right to get the petition dismissed as withdrawn without having obtained due consent of the other petitioners. Rakesh Bahadur and Sri. Raj Kumar Upadhyay, Advocates on 7.7.2023, in which while denying the contents of the counter-affidavit, it has been stated that the petitioner No.2 would have no right to get the petition dismissed as withdrawn without having obtained due consent of the other petitioners. It is, inter alia, stated in paragraphs 31, 32, 33 of the rejoinder affidavit as follows. "31. That a bare perusal of the well settled provisions of the Order XXll sub clause 5 of the Civil Procedure Code 1908,clearly says that "Nothing in this Rule shall be deemed to authorize the Court to permit one of several plaintiffs to abandon a suit or part of a claim under sub rule (1) or to withdraw under sub rule (3) any suit or part of a claim without the consent of the other plaintiffs" meaning thereby the deponent who is a petitioner no-2 will have no right to get the petition dismissed as withdrawn, without having obtained the due consent of the other petitioners hence the Order in question dated-25.03.2022 is totally illegal and unjustified which cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. True copy of the aforesaid well settled provisions of the Order XXIII SubClause 5 of the CPC-1908 is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure NO-3 to this Affidavit. 32. That the grounds on which the prayer for dismissing as withdrawn are based are wholly misconceived and misleading which has never been taken place in between the parties, in respect of the any kind of compromise or any settlement out of the Court alleged to have been done and as such the Order in question dated-25.03.22 is unjustified and contrary to the law and is legally liable to be recalled and to be heard on merit in accordance with law. 33. That a part form this, there are several Judgments and Orders passed by the Honble Apex Court, in respect of the same issue in question that if any Order is obtained by making fraud, Collusion and misrepresentation upon the Court Concerned that will be nullity and will not be biding upon the parties which will be produced before the Honble Court at the time of its hearing." 6. This rejoinder affidavit of Awadh Narain Singh, Petitioner No. 2, was sworn on 30.06.2023 and he has been identified by Sri. R.K. Upadhyay, Advocate, before the Oath Commissioner. 7. This rejoinder affidavit of Awadh Narain Singh, Petitioner No. 2, was sworn on 30.06.2023 and he has been identified by Sri. R.K. Upadhyay, Advocate, before the Oath Commissioner. 7. From a perusal of the order-sheet, it appears that Withdrawal Application No. 13 of 2022 was filed by Sri. Aashish Mishra and Sri. Varindra Kumar Rai, Advocates on 2.3.2022, alongwith a declaration signed by the aforesaid Sri. Aashish Mishra and Sri. Varindra Kumar Rai, Advocates, affirming the contents of the document titled "Affidavit" of the petitioner No. 2, Awadh Narain Singh seeking to withdraw the aforesaid petition. The declaration was apparently made pursuant to the orders passed by this Court permitting filing of such a declaration in view of the COVID-19 pandemic in lieu of an affidavit. The Advocates Sri. Aashish Misra and Siri Varindra Kumar Rai have signed on the withdrawal application as counsels for the petitioners. In the "affidavit" filed along with the withdrawal application, the Aadhaar Card number of the petitioner no.2 and the mobile number linked to the Aadhaar Card were mentioned, and it was stated that the matter is a family dispute between the parties and now they do not fight against each other because there is no end of civil dispute. It was further stated that the petitioners and respondents belong to the same family and have settled their matter outside the Court and they have made an oral compromise between them that they will not fight each other anywhere and that is why they want to withdraw the present petition which is running (sic) before this Court. 8. On 23.03.2022, this Court allowed a Substitution Application bearing No.12 of 2021 to bring on record the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased petitioner no.1-Mahadeo Singh, who passed away on 08.05.2021. Petitioner Nos. 1/1, 1/2, 1/3 and 1/4 were directed to be substituted after suffixing the name of Mahadeo Singh with the word 'deceased'. By the same order, this Court permitted a further withdrawal application to be filed on behalf of the substituted petitioners. 9. It is pertinent to mention here that Substitution Application No. 12 of 2021 was filed on 04.08.2021 by the aforesaid Sri. Aashish Mishra and Sri. Varindra Kumar Rai, Advocates, purporting to be "counsels for the petitioners" alongwith an affidavit of Ashok Singh, a legal representative of the deceased petitioner No. 1. 9. It is pertinent to mention here that Substitution Application No. 12 of 2021 was filed on 04.08.2021 by the aforesaid Sri. Aashish Mishra and Sri. Varindra Kumar Rai, Advocates, purporting to be "counsels for the petitioners" alongwith an affidavit of Ashok Singh, a legal representative of the deceased petitioner No. 1. Alongwith the aforesaid affidavit, a vakalatanama, purporting to be of the substituted applicants (i) Vijay Bahadur Singh, (ii) Ashok Kumar Singh, (iii) Dinesh Kumar Singh and (iv) Dilip Kumar Singh, was filed. The signatures of the aforesaid four legal representatives of the deceased petitioner no. 1 were attested by Sri. V.K. Rai, Advocate. All four signatures, as visible to the eye, appear to have been made by the same person. A scanned copy of the vakalatnama dated 04.08.2021 is as follows:- 10. Other than the aforesaid vakalatnama dated 04.08.2021 allegedly signed by the legal representatives of the deceased petitioner no. 1, there appears on record another vakalatnama allegedly signed by the deceased, petition no.1, Mahadeo Singh, and the petition no.2- Awadh Narain Singh, appointing Shri. Aashish Mishra as their advocate which vakalatnama bears the date of 31.01.2017. A vakalatnama of Sri. Varindra Kumar Rai, Advocate on behalf of the petitioner no. 1, Mahadeo Singh is also on record, which was filed alongwith the petition itself. 11. It is pertinent to note that the rejoinder affidavit filed in reply to the counter affidavit filed in the aforesaid Recall Application No.15 of 2022, which has been purportedly sworn by petitioner no. 2, in that affidavit, Sri. R.K. Upadhyay, Advocate has identified the deponent. A vakalatnama dated 22.01.2023 in favour of Sri. R. K. Upadhyay, Advocate, was filed on 24.1.2023. A perusal of that vakalatnama reveals that it purports to have been signed by the petitioners. However, several of the signatures appearing therein appear to have been made by the hand of one person. A scanned copy of the vakalatnama allegedly executed by the petitioners in favour of Sri. Raj Kumar Upadhyaya, Advocate is as follows:- 12. It appears that pursuant to the aforesaid order of the Court dated 23.03.2022, a Supplementary Withdrawal Application No. 16 of 2022 was filed on 25.03.2022. In this application, prayer was again made for withdrawal of the aforesaid petition and is signed by the aforesaid Advocates Sri. Aashish Mishra and Sri. Varindra Kumar Rai, who have signed as "counsels for the petitioners". In this application, prayer was again made for withdrawal of the aforesaid petition and is signed by the aforesaid Advocates Sri. Aashish Mishra and Sri. Varindra Kumar Rai, who have signed as "counsels for the petitioners". This application is also accompanied by an affidavit sworn by Awadh Narain Singh, the petitioner No.2. The deponent of this affidavit has been identified by Sri. Aashish Mishra Advocate. It is noted, on perusal of the affidavit filed in support of Recall Application No.15 of 2022, that the signature of the petitioner No.2, Awadh Narain Singh, is admitted to be made by him in the affidavit in Withdrawal Application No.16 of 2022, but the contents of that affidavit, purporting to seek withdrawal of the petition, are denied. It is stated in that affidavit that the petitioner No.1 is not well versed in English language and on the statement of his counsel, signed the affidavit prepared by him, thinking it to be an affidavit prepared for getting the aforesaid petition listed for final hearing. A complaint has been made by him to the Bar Council of U.P. at Allahabad. It has been submitted that Withdrawal Application No.16 of 2022 could not have been allowed by this Court without obtaining consent of the other petitioners in view of the mandate of sub-rule (5) of Rule 1 of Order XXIII CPC. It is submitted that in view of the allegation of fraud made in the affidavit in Recall Application No.15 of 2022, this Court has inherent power to recall its order in view of the judgment dated 23.1.2023 passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in Writ-C No.36565 of 2022. 13. In view of the allegation of fraud made in the Recall Application No.16 of 2022 and the objection with respect to Order XXIII Rule 1(5) CPC, the delay in filing the aforesaid recall application is liable to be condoned and the Withdrawal Application deserves to be allowed. 14. Accordingly, the delay in filing the recall application is condoned and the aforesaid delay condonation and the recall applications are allowed. The order dated 25.03.2022 allowing the withdrawal application and dismissing the petition as withdrawn, is recalled, and the petition is restored to its original number. The petition shall now be listed peremptorily on 13.12.2023 for hearing. 15. 14. Accordingly, the delay in filing the recall application is condoned and the aforesaid delay condonation and the recall applications are allowed. The order dated 25.03.2022 allowing the withdrawal application and dismissing the petition as withdrawn, is recalled, and the petition is restored to its original number. The petition shall now be listed peremptorily on 13.12.2023 for hearing. 15. Since, as stated in the Recall Application No.15 of 2022, complaint has been made to the Bar Council, this Court has restrained itself from taking further steps. However, it is expected that the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh shall take the complaint to its conclusion soon. 16. There does not appear to be a duly signed vakalatnama on behalf of all the petitioners on record. The counsel for the petitioners may seek instructions from all the petitioners within one week from today.