1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER S.B. Civil. Misc Application No. 158/2010 in SB Civil Writ Petition No. 14501/2009 Bajrang Singh Shekhawat Vs Court Rent Appellate Tribunal & ors 8.11.2010 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MN BHANDARI Mr Devendra Raghav - for the petitioner Mr Anurag Sharma – for respondents BY THE COURT: This misc application has been filed seeking recall of the order dated 14.12.2009. It is stated by learned counsel for petitioner that no compromise was arrived at between the parties before the executing court. It is only that Advocate therein prepared a compromise under his own signatures by using blank signed papers of the petitioner thus cannot be said to be a compromise in the eyes of law. Hence, order dated 14.12.2009 may be recalled. Learned counsel for respondents has opposed the prayer. It is stated that after the compromise between the parties and even the order of this court, petitioner kept silence for a period of more than six months. When the date for vacation of the premises came close as per the compromise that this pplication has 2 been filed by the petitioner. In the application now filed, nothing has been alleged against counsel for petitioner before the High Court though writ petition was dismissed on his statement. Looking to aforesaid, no ground is made out for recalling of the order in question. I have considered submissions made by learned counsel for parties. Perusal of the order dated 14.12.2009 shows that on the request of learned counsel for petitioner, writ petition was dismissed treating it to be infructuous. Nothing has been alleged against counsel for petitioner who alleged to have made incorrect statement before the High Court. The only allegation is against counsel appearing for petitioner before the executing court. Learned counsel for the petitioner herein could not justify as to how the order dated 14.12.2009 can be recalled when it was passed at the instance of his own counsel more so when nothing has been alleged against him. Justification of delay has also not been advanced. Looking to aforesaid, no ground is made out to recall the order dated 14.12.2009. Hence, misc application is dismissed. (MN BHANDARI), J. bnsharma