JUDGMENT :

Ravindra Maithani, J.

The present revision has already been decided on 13.02.2023. Now, a Recall Application No. 3508 of 2023 has been filed by the revisionist.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

3. Learned counsel for the revisionist would submit that on the date of hearing, learned counsel for the revisionist could not appear due to some personal reasons as he was to attend the cremation of his cousin. A litigant should not suffer due to any act or omission of his counsel, therefore, the order deserves to be recalled. It is also submitted that thematter may be heard and the order may be passed thereafter. Learned counsel would also submit that in the process of filing the recall application, there is seven days’ delay, which is bona fide.

4. Having heard, the Delay Condonation Application No. 3509 of 2023 is allowed. Delay in filing the recall application is condoned.

5. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the revisionist has placed reliance on the principle of law, as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of K.S. Panduranga vs. State of Karnataka, (2013) 3 SCC 721 and Christopher Raj Vs. K. Vijayakumar, (2019) 7 SCC