Hon’ble Krishna Murari, J.—This is an application with a prayer to recall the judgment and order dated 1st May, 2007 passed by this Court dismissing the writ petition. The basic ground taken in the recall application is that since the dispute pertains to district Pratapgrah which falls within the territorial jurisdiction of Lucknow Bench of this Court as such the order passed is without jurisdiction and liable to be recalled.

2. Writ petition was filed for a writ of certiorari against the order of Deputy Director of Consolidation, Pratapgarh and was entertained at Allahabad and was finally decided.

3. It is contended that since there was no order as contemplated by second proviso to Article 14 of the U. P. High Courts (Amalgamation) Order 1948 hence writ petition pertaining to jurisdiction of Lucknow Bench of this Court could neither have been entertained muchless decided by this Court. In support of the contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Nirmal Dass Kathuria v. State Transport (Appellate) Tribunal, U. P., Lucknow, AIR 1972 (All) 200, wherein following questions were referred for the opinion of the Full Bench:

1. Can a case falling within the jurisdiction of the Lucknow Bench of this Court be presented at Allahabad ?

2. Can the Judges sitting at Allahabad summarily dismiss a case presented at Allahabad pertaining to the jurisdiction of the Lucknow Bench.

3. Can a case pertaining to the jurisdiction of the Lucknow Bench, presented and entertained at Allahabad, be decided finally by the judges sitting at Allahabad, without there being an order as contemplated by the second proviso to Article 14 of the U. P. High Courts (Amalgamation) Order, 1948 ?

4. What is the meaning of the expression “in respect of cases arising in such areas in Oudh” used in the first provision to Article 14 of the High Courts (Amalgamation) Order, 1948 ? Has this expression reference to the place where the case originated or to the place of sitting of the last Court or authority whose decree or order is being challenged in the proceeding before the High Court ?

5. Whether this writ petition can be entertained and heard by the Judges sitting at Lucknow ?

4. The Full Bench by majority answered the aforesaid questions as follows :

“Question No. 1. A case falling within the jurisdiction of the Judges at Lucknow should be presented at Lucknow and not at Allahabad”.

“Question No. 2. However, if such a case is presented at Allahabad the Judges at Allahabad cannot summarily dismiss it only for that reason. The case should be returned for filing before the Judges at Lucknow, and where the case has been mistakenly or inadvertently entertained at Allahabad a direction should be made to the High Court office to transmit the papers of the case to Lucknow.”

“Question No. 3. A case pertaining the jurisdiction of the Judges at Lucknow and presented before the Judges at Allahabad cannot be decided by the Judges at Allahabad in the absence of an order contemplated by the second proviso to Article 14 of the of the U. P. High Courts (Amalgamation) Order, 1948.”

5. In so far as findings returned on question Nos. 4 and 5 are concerned, they are not relevant for the purpose of the present case.

6. The findings given by the Full Bench of this Court on three questions have been affirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Nasiruddin v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, AIR 1975(2) SCC 671. The Hon’ble Apex Court has observed as under :

“37. To sum up, our conclusions are as follows. First, there is no permanent seat of the High Court at Allahabad. The seats at Allahabad and at Lucknow may be changed in accordance with the provisions of the Order. Second, the Chief Justice of the High Court has no power to increase or decrease the areas in Oudh from time to time. The areas in Oudh have been determined once by the Chief Justice and, therefore, there is no scope for changing the areas. Third,