9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2011 (2) TMI 1565 - SC - Indian LawsApplication for recall of the Order - In present case the Criminal Revision was listed in the High Court. No one appeared on behalf of the Revisionist though the Counsels for Respondents appeared. In these circumstances the judgment was passed. later an application was moved for recall of the Order alleging that the case was shown in the computer list and not in the main list of the High Court and hence the learned Counsel for the Revisionist had not noted the case and hence he did not appear. It often happens that sometimes a case is not noted by the Counsel or his clerk in the cause list and hence the Counsel does not appear. This is a human mistake and can happen to anyone. Hence the High Court recalled the order and directed the case to be listed for fresh hearing. same was challenged and hence this appeal. HELD THAT - In our opinion Section 362 cannot be considered in a rigid and over technical manner to defeat the ends of justice. Hence we see no error in the impugned order passed by the High Court. The appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed.
Issues:
1. Appeal against the impugned judgment of the Allahabad High Court dated 29.1.2004 in Criminal Revision No. 136/1998. 2. Recalling of the Order dated 2.9.2003 by the High Court. 3. Interpretation of Section 362 of the Code in the context of recalling orders. 4. Differentiation between recall and review petitions. 5. Application of legal principles to determine the validity of the High Court's order. Analysis: 1. The appeal was filed against the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Criminal Revision No. 136/1998. The High Court had recalled the order dated 2.9.2003 due to the Revisionist's non-appearance, leading to a fresh hearing being directed. The appellant challenged this recall order before the Supreme Court. 2. The appellant relied on the decision in Hari Singh Mann v. Harbhajan Singh Bajwa, emphasizing the principle that once a matter is finally disposed of by a court, it becomes functus officio unless set aside by a competent jurisdiction. However, the Supreme Court, citing Brahaspati's observation, noted that decisions should not be based solely on the letter of the law to prevent injustice. 3. The Court interpreted Section 362 of the Code, stating that it should not be applied rigidly to defeat the ends of justice. The appellant argued that the High Court erred in recalling the order, but the Supreme Court disagreed, emphasizing the need to consider the circumstances and the application of legal principles. 4. The Supreme Court distinguished between recall and review petitions, citing Asit Kumar v. State of West Bengal and Ors. In a recall petition, the court does not delve into merits but recalls an order passed without giving an opportunity of hearing. The Court treated the petition as a recall petition and found no error in the High Court's order. 5. Ultimately, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court's decision to recall the order dated 2.9.2003. The Court's analysis focused on balancing legal principles with the need for justice, highlighting the importance of considering the specific circumstances of each case.
|
