( 1 ) THE present writ petition has been filed for quashing the circular dated 29-10-1999 (Annexure-A) issued by the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court which had been issued pursuant to the order dated 15-10-1999 passed by one of us in W. P. No. 16776 of 1996, the operative portion of which is to the following effect.-

( 2 ) BUT before parting, I wish to notice the unwarranted practice which seems to have developed in the Registry of this Court. It may be because the persons dealing with applications like the present one, are not aware of the rules of procedure and the consequence of treating petitions for restoration as IAs.

( 3 ) IA on its very face, means interlocutory application and it can only be filed during the subsistence of a judicial proceeding. But once a judicial proceeding comes to an end, either on withdrawal or dismissal simpliciter for default, or on merits, then and thereafter if the said order is sought to be recalled, reviewed or the proceeding is sought to be restored then the application has to be registered as a C. P. (civil petition) and only when the C. P. is allowed, the final order in the concerned judicial proceeding will stand modified, reviewed or recalled. Application filed for recalling the order disposing of the cases by way of dismissal or otherwise has to be necessarily registered as C. Ps.

( 4 ) THE Registrar General and Registrar (Judicial) of this Court shall bring to the notice of all concerned officials in the Registry about this fact and take it from them in writing that they have understood the importance of this order. In future, if they are found to have committed any mistake of this nature, the Registrars concerned will be duty-bound to initiate necessary disciplinary action against such erring officials, because such mistakes on their part are telling upon the very judicial functioning causing unnecessary confusion".

2. The above judicial order as also the consequent circular have been questioned on the ground that the same are contrary to Rule 1 (1) and (3) of Chapter X of the Karnataka High Court Rules, 1959 (in short the 'rules' ). The relevant part of the circular which was issued by the Registrar (Judicial) pursuant to the above order was to the following effect:--

"in view of the order dated 15-10-1999 passed in W. P. No. 16776 of 1996, it is hereby directed that hereafter in disposed of cases (whether on merit or otherwise), applications iled (for recalling/review of order or for restoration of proceedings etc.) shall be registered as civil petitions and any omission in this regard will be viewed seriously".

3. Sri R. N. Narasimhamurthy, learned Senior Advocate, who appeared for the petitioners, by placing reliance on sub-rule (1) of Rule 1 of Chapter X of the Rules sought to impress that application filed for recalling of the orders/judgments by which the proceedings are disposed of finally one way or the other are merely interlocutory in nature and therefore such recalling application have to be registered only as interlocutory applications (IAs) and not as civil petitions in terms of Chapter VII of the Rules. But during the course of arguments, on a close examination of the sub-rule (3) of Rule 1 of Chapter X, it became glaringly clear that the applications filed for recalling the final orders cannot be equated with interlocutory applications.

4. For a better appreciation of the above aspect, it is appropriate to reproduce sub-rules (1) and (3) of Rule 1 of Chapter X in its entirety. It reads thus.-- "1 (1) All applications made during the pendency of an appeal, reference, petition or other matter presented to and pending in the High Court and connected with the same or with any decree, order or sentence or other proceedings of the subordinate Court which is the subject-matter of the same, and praying for any interim relief or order, shall be called Interlocutory Applications and be consecutively numbered separately in each appeal, reference, petition or matter as the c

Click Here to Read the rest of this document