Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
RAJANI DUBEY, AMITENDRA KISHORE PRASAD
Deepak Kumar Badholiya S/o Late Srinivas Badholiya – Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Housing And Environment Department – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to eviction order based on jurisdiction. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. petitioner seeks recall of order citing fraud. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. opposition stance against recall application. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. court's findings on petitioner's failure to disclose. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 5. distinction between recall and review jurisdiction. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 6. conditions for exercising recall powers. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 7. limitations on inherent power under section 151 cpc. (Para 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 8. reopening issues not permitted in recall. (Para 20 , 21) |
| 9. court dismisses recall petition for lack of merit. (Para 22 , 23) |
ORDER :
Amitendra Kishore Prasad, J.
1. By way of this petition, the petitioner is seeking recalling of the order dated 23.01.2026 passed in WPC No. 2554/2024.
2. The main crux of Writ Petition (C) No. 2554/2024 was that Respondent No. 3 Ajit Pujari and Respondent No. 4 Lalita Bhagat exercised and adjudicated the powers of Rent Controller without holding a lawful appointment order as mandatorily required under Section 7 of the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011. The impugned ex-parte eviction order dated 22.06.2022 was passed by Ajit Pujari and the application for setting aside
Recall of judicial orders is limited to cases involving fraud, jurisdictional errors, or procedural irregularity; conflicts on substantive merits do not justify reopening concluded cases.
The Chief Justice has inherent authority to assign cases, and any adjudication made without such assignment is void; however, a Division Bench retains jurisdiction if generally authorized to hear any....
Compliance with mandatory deposit requirements under Section 17 of the Provincial Small Causes Courts Act is essential for challenging an ex parte judgment, and procedural missteps do not invalidate ....
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.
Point of Law : Contempt Judge did not have the power to revive its own order.
The Board of Revenue can recall an order if it determines that jurisdictional requirements were not met, emphasizing the need for proper documentation to support tenancy claims under the Orissa Estat....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
