2024-02-12
Subject:
O R D E R
The matter is listed in Chamber for passing order in the IA No.101526 of 2021 in Miscellaneous Application No. 16590/2021 preferred by the applicant herein.
The applicant-in-person appearing through virtual mode, persistently urged that the I.A No. 184064/2022 preferred by her seeking recall of the order dated 04-11-2022, passed in IA No. 101526 of 2021 in MA No. 16590/2021 has still not been decided and thus, before proceeding further with the IA No. 101526 of 2021 in MA No. 16590/2021, this Court should consider the prayer made in the interlocutory application.
The application (I.A No. 101526 of 2021 in MA No. 16590/2021)
afore-stated has been preferred by the applicant with the following prayers:-
“a. Direct the registry to register the appeal against the registrar order filed as Miscellaneous Application Diary No. 16590 of 2021 discarding the defect of requiring to file application to appear and argue in-person under Miscellaneous Application Diary No. 16590 of 2021 since the said application has already been submitted under the main case (Contempt Petition (Civil) Diary No. 6007 of 2021) under which the appeal filed against the registrar order (Miscellaneous Application Diary No. 16590 if 2021)
has been filed.
b. Direct the registry not to insist on filing of application to appear and argue in- person under Miscellaneous Application Diary No. 16590 of 2021 since the said application has already been submitted under the main case (Contempt Petition (Civil) Diary No. 6007 of 2021) under which the appeal filed against the registrar order (Miscellaneous Application Diary No. 16590 of 2021)
has been filed.”
In order to appreciate the prayer made in the application (IA No. 184064/2022), this Court takes note of the record of proceedings in the present matter. The Miscellaneous Application No. 16590/2021 came to be listed in Chambers on 8-11-2021 & 30-09- 2022. On both these dates, the applicant was neither present nor was represented and thus, the matter was deferred. On 4-11-2022, when the matter was called out in Chambers before Hon’ble Mr.
Justice M.M. Sundresh, the following order was passed:-
“Three weeks’ time is granted to cure the defect(s).”
Thus, it is apparent that no consideration was made on merits of the application and the applicant was simply given time to cure the defects.
The matter thereafter was taken up in Chambers by Hon’ble Mr.
Justice Dipankar Dutta on 17-07-2023 on which, no one appeared and the matter was deferred by three weeks.
On 31-08-2023, the matter was listed in Chambers before Hon’ble Mr. Justice Aravind Kumar, on which date, the applicant made a request to recall the order dated 04-11-2022 on which, the following order came to be passed:-
“Since the applicant is seeking for recalling of the order dated 04.11.2022, Registry is directed to list this matter before the Bench presided by the Hon’ble Judge who passed the order dated 04.11.2022 after obtaining orders from Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India.”
The matter was then listed in Chambers before different Benches on 10-11-2023, 01-12-2023 and 05-01-2023 and was adjourned on the request of the applicant.
Today, the applicant-in-person appearing through virtual mode vehemently and fervently contended that her application seeking recall of the order dated 04-11-2022 has not been decided and thus, the case is required to be posted before Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.M Sundresh.
This Court feels that the prayer so made by the applicant is misconceived. On 04-11-2022 the Court simply granted three weeks’ time to the applicant to cure the defects in the M.A No. 16590/2021. If the applicant entertains a belief that her application was not defective, she could always file an objection against the office report. Hence, the prayer made by the applicant- in-person to direct that the matter should be placed before Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.M. Sundresh is turned down and I.A No. 184064/2022 is dismissed.
List the matter in Court for appropriate directions.
(RASHMI DHYANI PANT) (RAM SUBHAG SINGH)
COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER (NSH)
Family Judge Exposes Weaponized Litigation in Custody Dispute
14 Feb 2026
Centre Notifies Two High Court Chief Justice Appointments
16 Feb 2026
Deep Chandra Joshi Appointed Acting NCLT President
16 Feb 2026
Debunking the Myth That Indians Lack Privacy Concepts
16 Feb 2026
Whose View Is It Anyway? Juniors Uncredited
16 Feb 2026
Private Property Disputes Not Human Rights Violations; HRC Lacks Jurisdiction Under PHRA: Gujarat HC
16 Feb 2026
Supreme Court Rejects Stay on RTI Data Amendments
16 Feb 2026
DIFC Court: Strong Reasons Required to Block Arbitration
17 Feb 2026
Bar Leaders Oppose High Courts Saturday Sittings
17 Feb 2026
Inherent powers to recall orders exist but only for valid grounds; absence of representation alone does not justify such recall.
The need for the Trial Court to decide the application of the Petitioner on its own merits and the imposition of legal costs as a condition for the liberty granted.
Special Leave Petitions cannot challenge administrative orders of the High Court.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of a fair hearing and the adverse consequences of an order for the parties involved.
The court ruled that an ex parte order requires a recall application to be maintainable, emphasizing the need for parties to be heard before any interim orders are issued.
The court emphasized that applications for recalling orders must demonstrate sufficient cause, which was not established in this case.
Inordinate delays in challenging court orders can bar the right to relief, as established by settled law, emphasizing the need for timely legal actions.
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.