Back
2025 Supreme(Raj) 2675
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J.
Sohan Kumar Sankhala - Appellant
Versus
Smt Laxmi Parewa And Ors. - Respondent
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 1882 of 2012
Decided On : 08-10-2025
For the Petitioner: Mr. R.M. Jain, Adv.
For the Respondent: Mr. Vivek Sharma, Addl. G.A., Mr. Devi Singh, Dy.G.A., Ms. Anita Agarwal, Adv. With Mr. Laxmi Kant, Adv.
A party absent during proceedings cannot recall a dismiss order without demonstrating a fresh cause of action.
Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 482 - Recalling of an order - Application for recalling of the order dismissing petition in default was rejected, allowing liberty to file a fresh petition if there's new cause of action - It discloses the principle that the absence of the petitioner during the proceedings does not entitle them to recall the order without a new claim. (Paras 1 and 2)
(B) Dismissal in Default - Dismissal of a petition in default is not a determination on merits, and the leanings of the petitioner to recall such orders need to be examined through proper legal channels and timelines. (Paras 3)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner did not appear in court on two occasions. The earlier application to recall a previous order dismissing the petition was not substantiated with a fresh petition or cause of action.
Findings of Court:
The court refused to recall the dismissal order but stated that the petitioner could file a new petition under Section 482 within two weeks if they had a fresh cause of action.
Issues: Whether the absence of the petitioner justifies a recall of the court's earlier order dismissing the petition in default.
Ratio Decidendi: The absence of a party in proceedings does not automatically warrant a recall of a dismissal order unless there is an established fresh cause of action or appeal against the previous order.
Result: The application for recalling the dismissal order was rejected.
ORDER :
ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J.
"No-one is present on behalf of the petitioner in the first round as well as in the second round. Dismissed in default. However, if the petitioner has fresh cause of action then he shall be at liberty to file a fresh petition."
"This application has been filed for recalling the order dated 15.09.2011 passed by this Court which is reproduced as under :
No-one is present on behalf of the petitioner in the first round as well as in the second round. Dismissed in default. However, if the petitioner has fresh cause of action then he shall be at liberty to file a fresh petition.
The petitioner has not filed fresh petition and in spite of that he has filed this application for recalling the order dated 15.09.2011.
The application is accordingly rejected.
However, the petitioner is free to move fresh petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. as ordered by this Court vide order dated 15.09.2011 within a period of two weeks from today."
15. Divorced persons when may marry again.—When a marriage has been dissolved by a decree of divorce and either there is no right of appeal against the decree or, if there is such a right of appeal, the time for appealing has expired without an appeal having been presented, or an appeal has been presented but has been dismissed, it shall be lawful for either party to the marriage to marry again.
