S. MURALIDHAR J.

( 1 ) THESE two applications CM No. 8513/2006 in W. P. (C) 3916/1990 CM No. 9394/2006 in Cont. Cas. (C) 88/92, have been filed seeking recall of an order dated 3. 7. 2006 passed by us in writ petition W. P. (C) No. 3916 of 1990 and contempt Case No. 88/1992.

( 2 ) THESE applications are filed by the petitioner whose counsel on record submitted before us that on the earlier date of hearing i. e 3. 7. 2006, he was in some serious personal difficulty and was unable to attend the hearing. We may mention here that on 3. 7. 2006 we passed over the matter once and when no one was present on behalf of the petitioner even on the second call, we proceeded to hear counsel for the respondent and passed the final order dated 3. 7. 2006.

( 3 ) ALTHOUGH these applications are designed as applications for recall of our order dated 3. 7. 2006, they really are petitions seeking a review of that order. Counsel for the petitioner was unable to show us any provision in the CPC or the Rules of this Court, that permits an application for ?recall? to be filed. The omnibus provision of S. 151 CPC ought not to be pressed into service when there are specific provisions in the CPC and this Court's Rules governing the filing of review petitions.

( 4 ) AS far as the CPC provisions are concerned, Section 114 readwith Order xlvii CPC deals with the filing of review petitions. The word 'recall' is not found in these provisions. As far as the Rules of our High Court are concerned, part A (a) of Chapter I of Volume V of the High Court Rules and Orders deals with ?the presentation and reception of appeals, petitions and applications for review and revision?. Para 10 of Part A (a) reads thus:"10. Application for review to contain a certificate that there are sufficient grounds- Every application for review of a judgment or order of a Division bench, or of a Single bench of the High Court presented by an Advocate shall be signed by him, and he shall certify that the grounds contained therein are good and sufficient grounds for the review sought. No Advocate shall be heard in support of an application for review of any judgment or order unless and until he has certified in the manner above prescribed the grounds already taken or any amended grounds of application. "nowhere in these rules is there any reference to any application for 'recall'. The position that emerges is that where a case has been dismissed not merely for default or non-prosecution but on merits as well, the only course available to a party, who wishes to have such order of the court reviewed, is to file an appropriate application for that purpose in accordance with the provisions set out hereinabove. It requires to be noticed that the provisions in para 10 above applies both in the case of review of a judgment or an order of either the single Judge or the Division Bench of this Court. Every such application is required to be presented by an advocate, signed by him and such advocate shall certify that the grounds taken are good and sufficient grounds for the review sought. Further, it appears that this certification of the grounds by the advocate is a mandatory pre-condition for the review petition to be considered. The present applications do not satisfy this requirement at all. By conveniently labelling them as applications for 'recall' what in effect is sought to be done is to avoid the procedure outlined hereinabove. This practice requires to be discouraged as it needlessly adds to the case load of the Court and gives a party a further chance to file petitions for review, if the attempt at having the order 'recalled' fails. This by itself is sufficient to dismiss the present applications.

( 5 ) HOWEVER, in the interests of justice, we were not inclined to reject these applications on that ground and felt that the petitioner must be given an opportunity to place its case before us. Accordingly, we proceed to treat these applications as review petitions and are disposing the