Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2017 (1) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (1) TMI 1777 - HC - Indian LawsSeeking recall of order - error apparent on the face of the record or not - doctrine of fraud - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - In the case of STATE OF PUNJAB AND SUMEDH SINGH SAINI VERSUS DAVINDER PAL SINGH BHULLAR ORS. ETC. 2011 (12) TMI 656 - SUPREME COURT , it has been held that If a judgment has been pronounced without jurisdiction or in violation of principles of natural justice or where the order has been pronounced without giving an opportunity of being heard to a party affected by it; or where an order was obtained by abuse of the process of the court which would really amount to its being without jurisdiction, inherent powers can be exercised to recall such order, for the reason, that in such eventuality lune order becomes a nullity and the provisions of section 362 crpc would not operate. In INDIAN BANK VERSUS M/S. SATYAM FIBRES INDIA PVT. LTD. 1996 (8) TMI 518 - SUPREME COURT stated the legal position that where the Court is misled by a party or the court itself commits a mistake which prejudices a party, the Court has the inherent power to recall its order. Application disposed.
Issues:
1. Application seeking to recall an order passed by the High Court. 2. Grounds for recalling the order based on legal principles and case laws. 3. Consideration of the application for recalling the order by the High Court. Analysis: 1. The applicants sought to recall an order passed by the High Court in a criminal application. The applicants had initially filed a petition seeking various reliefs related to quashing an FIR under the Child Marriage Restrain Act. The matter was scheduled for admission on a specific date, but the counsel representing the applicants was not present during the hearing. Instead of dismissing the matter, the Court examined the papers and decided that the application could not be entertained at that stage due to the ongoing investigation. The Court allowed the applicants to return if the chargesheet was filed without sufficient legal evidence for framing charges. The applicants then sought to recall the order based on the absence of their counsel during the initial hearing. 2. The legal principles governing the recall of orders were extensively discussed during the proceedings. The Court considered the grounds on which an order can be recalled, such as errors on the face of the record, perversity in the order, breach of natural justice, or obtaining the order by fraud. Reference was made to various judgments, including the distinction between review and recall jurisdiction as highlighted in the case of Vishnu Agarwal vs. State of U.P. The Court also cited the case of State of Punjab vs. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar, emphasizing that orders passed without jurisdiction or in violation of natural justice can be recalled. The judgment in Kushalbhai Ratanbhai Rohit and Ors vs. The State of Gujarat was cited to support the notion that judges can recall orders before they are formally delivered. 3. After considering the arguments presented by the counsels and the legal precedents, the High Court decided to recall the order passed on the application. The Court acknowledged that the counsel had not been given an opportunity to make submissions during the initial hearing, leading to the decision to recall the order and rehear the matter on its merits. The application seeking to recall the order was thus disposed of, allowing for a fresh consideration of the case based on the legal principles discussed during the proceedings.
|