Back
GURPAL SINGH AHLUWALIA
Rahul Jain S/O Shri Ramesh Chand Jain – Appellant
Versus
Neha Jain D/O Shri Mahesh Dayal Jain – Respondent
ORDER :
This application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed for recall of order dated 13.05.2024 passed in MCRC No.19092/2023.
2. It is submitted by counsel for applicant that although Vakalatnama was filed by applicant on 19.08.2023 but applicant came to Jabalpur on 01.02.2024 for preparation of return. All the documents which were necessary for filing of return were given to his counsel and necessary papers were also signed. Applicant was all the time misled by his earlier counsel that reply has been filed but in fact reply was not filed at all. It is further submitted that applicant had also paid fee to his counsel but even necessary fee payable on Vakalatnama was also not submitted by his counsel. It is further submitted that applicant has already approached the State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur by filing a complaint on 27.05.2024 in which he has specifically alleged in paragraph Nos.4 to 9 about professional misconduct committed by his earlier counsel. It is further submitted that since applicant was not negligent in prosecuting his case but it was on account of professional misconduct by his previous counsel, therefore, order dated 13.05.2024 passed in MCRC
Litigants should not suffer due to the mistakes of their counsel; allegations of professional misconduct must be addressed to the Bar Council.
Petitions dismissed for want of prosecution can be restored under Section 482 Cr.P.C. when there is a bona fide reason for absence, circumventing the prohibition of Section 362 Cr.P.C.
The court clarified that a dismissal for default does not amount to a final order, allowing recall and reinstatement for hearings on merits under inherent powers of the High Court.
Wrong nomenclature or erroneous citation of a provision of law cannot debar a party from having its application considered by the Court if it is otherwise legally maintainable.
The primary prayer in both recall applications was substantially the recall of the order dated December 6, 2018, and the Court rejected the second recall application on the ground of constructive res....
Judicial review does not imply personal criticism of lower court judges unless explicitly stated; expunged remarks may cause reputational harm.
The High Court lacks the power to review or recall its orders after they have been signed, as it becomes functus officio and such actions are barred under Section 362 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
A court cannot review its own judgment once signed, except to correct clerical errors, and inherent powers to recall judgments are limited to jurisdictional errors or violations of natural justice.
A change of counsel does not justify recalling a witness for further cross-examination; sufficient grounds must be shown to avoid delaying proceedings.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
