The main legal point established in the judgment is the limited scope for recalling a judgment and the jurisdiction of the High Court to review or modify its earlier orders.

( 1 ) MISC. Application no. 222891 of 2005 has been moved by the applicant-revisionists for recalling the judgment and order dated 5. 8. 2005 passed by this Court in Criminal Revision no. 1951 of 1998, Anand Swaroop and others Vs. State of U. P. and another,and Misc. Application no. 222899 of 2005 has been moved by the same applicant-revisionists for recalling the order of same date passed by this Court in Criminal Revision no. 1863 of 1998, Anand Swaroop and others vs. Brij Bhushan Parashar.

( 2 ) SINCE the parties to the above cases are common and common question of law are involved therein, I have heard both the cases together and now I am deciding them by a common order. The facts relevant for disposal of these two applications are that Brij Bhushan Parashar ( opposite party in both the cases ) had lodged a report against the accused applicants at police station Parikshit Garh district Meerut and on the basis of that report a case under sections 304-B and 201 I. P. C. was registered against the accused persons. The police, however, on completing the investigation submitted final report in the case. Aggrieved with that report Brij Bhushan Parashar filed a protest petition.

( 3 ) THE learned Magistrate after hearing on that protest petition passed an order on 15. 1. 1998 for treating the protest petition as a complaint and fixed a date for recording statements of the complainant and the witnesses under sections 200 and 202 Cr. P. C. Aggrieved with that order the complainant Brij Bhushan Parashar filed Criminal Revision no. 42 of 1998 in the court of the Sessions Judge, Meerut, who after hearing the parties ,decided it vide his order dated 3. 9. 1998 and set aside the order passed by the Magistrate for treating the protest petition as complaint, and remanded the case back to his court to re-examine the final report and reassess the evidence and then pass suitable order in the matter. The learned Magistrate after remand of the case heard the complainant and the State and this time he after perusal of the case diary and the evidence therein was of the view that a prima facie case under sections 304-B and 201 I. P. C. was made out against the accused-applicants. He, therefore, passed an order on 5. 10. 1998 for summoning the accused revisionists under sections 304-B and 201 I. P. C. Aggrieved with that order the accused filed Criminal Revision no. 1863 of 1998 in this Court. They also filed another Criminal Revision No. 1951 of 1998 thereafter against the judgment and order dated 3. 9. 1998 delivered by the Ist. Addl. Sessions Judge, Meerut in Criminal Revision no. 42 of 1998.

( 4 ) BOTH these revisions were fixed for hearing in this Court, and since none appeared for the revisionists on the date fixed for hearing even after revision of the cause list, I had heard learned counsel for the State as well as for the complainant opposite party in both the revisions and dismissed the same on merits vide my judgment and order dated 5. 8. 2005. Aggrieved with that order the accused applicants moved the aforesaid two applications for recalling the same. It is alleged in the affidavit filed in support of both the applications that when the case was taken up by the Court, Sri V. P. Srivastava, who was counsel for the applicants, was busy in another court, and by the time he could be free from that court, the revisions were heard and dismissed in his absence.

( 5 ) THE complainant Brij Bhushan Parashar filed counter affidavits in both the cases submitting therein that the order of this Court in both the revisions was passed on merits, and so the applications for recall of that order are not maintainable. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties and have perused the materials on record. The learned counsel for the opposite party Brij Bhushan Parashar at the very out set submitted that since the judgment of this Court dismissing both the revisions was on merits, it could not be recalled or set aside on the applicati