This recall/review application (No. 276 of 2009) has been filed by the election-petitioner (applicant) to recall the order dated 8-4-2009 passed by this Court on the adjournment application.

2. In this petition, on 25-3-2009, the petitioner moved an application for adjournment. The application was opposed by the respondent. The order was passed on 25-3-2009 to the following effect:-

“The application is allowed on payment of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees one thousand) as cost. The cost shall be deposited by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the account of High Court Legal Aid Committee before the next date fixed in the petition.

List on 8th of April, 2009 at the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.”

3. On 8-4-2009, the election petition was taken up and on that application for adjournment was moved on behalf of the petitioner, which was opposed by the learned counsel for the respondent. This Court passed an order to the following effect:-

“The adjoumment application is allowed on payment of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand) as cost. The cost shall be deposited by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the account of High Court Legal Aid Committee. If the cost imposed on earlier date i.e. 25-03-2009 and today is not deposited within a week from today, the election petition shall stand dismissed without reference to the Court.”

List on 27th of April, 2009 for orders.”

4. It reveals from a perusal of the endorsement made by the Registry of this Court that the order dated 8-4-2009 was not complied with by the election petitioner, therefore, the record was ordered to be consigned to the record room in compliance of the Court’s order. Thus, apparently the petitioner failed to comply the order within the time stipulated in the order, which culminated in dismissal of petition for default.

5. The present application has been moved by the election petitioner for recall/review of the aforesaid order dated 8-4-2009 on the ground that due to some inadvertence and some misunderstanding the cost could not be deposited within the stipulated time as ordered by this Court on 8-4-2009. It has been stated in the application that the election petitioner was present in the Court on 27-4-2009, but the petitioner, on inquiry having been made, came to know that the election petition has been treated to be dismissed. It is further stated that the petitioner was present in the Court along with the requisite bank drafts to be deposited in compliance of the Court’s order dated 8-4-2009 and in the interest of justice, the same may be accepted and the order dated 8-4-2009 be recalled, else the petitioner would suffer irreparable loss and injury for dismissal of the election for default. In support of the recall application, an affidavit duly sworn in by the petitioner has been filed.

6. On 30-4-2009 the matter came up before the Court and on that date, the respondent prayed for seven days time to file objection against the recall/review application. The matter was adjourned to 6-5-2009 for disposal of the said application.

7. On 6-5-2009, objection has been filed on behalf of the respondent contending that the recall/review application is not legally maintainable; that- there is no provision in the Representation of Peoples Act 1951 for recall/review of any order. It has also been contended that the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure are not applicable for review/recall in respect of election petitions. It is also contended that the applicant had not complied with the order intentionally hence there is no question of any misunderstanding. It has been further contended that the case of the applicant is not covered under Order 47, Rule 1 of the C.P.C.

8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the entire material placed before the Court.

9. Learned counsel for the election petitioner firstly contended that the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure are applicable as nearly as may be where there is no spe