1. Ex parte order passed by High Court — Application for recall filed on grounds of counsel's name missing from cause-list — Recall refused by High Court. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
1999 Supreme(SC) 948
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.P.Bharucha : S.S.M.Quadri
Lajwanti
Versus
Union Of India
Case No. : 4836 of 1999
Date of Decision : 8/30/99
The omission of a counsel's name from the court's cause-list constitutes sufficient cause for recalling an ex parte order, ensuring the party is given an opportunity to be heard on the merits of the case.
Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure - Recall of ex parte order - Sufficient cause - Absence of counsel's name in the cause-list - Where an order was passed ex parte and the cause-list did not mention the name of the counsel for the appellant on the relevant day, such omission constitutes sufficient cause to recall the order and hear the counsel on the merits of the petition. (Para 3)
Facts of the case:
An ex parte order was passed by the High Court. An application for recall was filed on the ground that the counsel's name was not mentioned in the cause-list for the relevant day. The High Court declined to recall the order, stating there was no ground to restore and rehear the petition which had been decided on merits.
Findings of Court:
The omission of the advocate's name from the cause-list is sufficient cause to recall the order and allow the counsel to be heard on the writ petition.
Issues: Whether the failure to list the counsel's name in the cause-list justifies the recall of an ex parte order.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the absence of the advocate's name in the cause-list for the relevant day constitutes sufficient cause for recalling an ex parte order to ensure the matter is heard and disposed of on merits.
Result: Appeal allowed and the order under appeal is set aside.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
practice and procedure
-
civil procedure
-
recall of order
- sufficient cause (Para 3)
-
recall of order
-
civil procedure
Table of Contents
2. Appellant contended that omission of counsel's name from the cause-list justified recall; High Court maintained that the petition was decided on merits. (Para 2 )
3. Omission of an advocate's name from the cause-list constitutes sufficient cause for recalling an ex parte order to ensure the party is heard. (Para 3 )
4. Absence of counsel's name in the cause-list is sufficient cause to recall an ex parte order and restore a petition for hearing on merits. (Para 3 )
5. Appeal allowed — Ex parte order set aside — Writ petition restored to High Court — Status quo on possession maintained. (Para 4 )
6. Does the omission of a counsel's name from the court's cause-list constitute sufficient cause for recalling an ex parte order?
Yes, the court held that when an advocate's name is not shown in the cause-list for the relevant day, it constitutes sufficient cause to recall an ex parte order and hear the counsel on the merits of the petition. (Para 3 )
S.P.BHARUCHA, J.
(1) LEAVE granted.
(2) AN order was passed by the Delhi High Court on 9-7-1997. It was passed ex parte against the appellant. An application for recall of that order was made. The application stated that on the relevant day the cause-list did not mention the name of the counsel for the appellant. The High Court declined to recall the order saying that it saw no ground to restore and rehear the petition which had been decided on merits.
(3) THE name of the appellants advocate not having been shown in the cause-list for the relevant day against the writ petition concerned, there was sufficient cause, in our view, to recall the order and hear the appellants counsel on the writ petition. This is the order that we propose to pass. Having regard to the lapse of time, the restored writ petition shall be heard and disposed of within four weeks of receipt of this order. It shall be open to the respondents to point out the orders passed on similar writ petitions by the Delhi High Court and confirmed by this Court.
(4) THE appeal is allowed and the order under appeal is set aside. The writ petition (Civil Writ Petition No. 184 of 1987) is restored to the file of the High Court to be heard and disposed of on merits as afore-stated. Pending further orders by the High Court, the status quo as to possession as of 9-2- 1998 shall be maintained.
(5) NO order as to costs.
