Ct. No.446 D/L Sathi 04 21.08.2025 CO/404/2025 With I.A. No. CAN 1 of 2025 Avik Shaw & Ors.

Versus.

M/s. Infoport Trading (India) Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

Mr. Bratin Kumar Dey, Adv.

Ms. Anjana Banerjee, Adv.

...For the Petitioners Mr. Tanmoy Mukherjee, Adv.

Mr. Diptyendu Kr. Pal, Adv.

...For the O.P. No 1

1. This is an application for recalling the order dated 17^th July, 2025 passed by this Court in CO No 405 of 2025. It is submitted by the Learned Advocate representing the petitioner of this application and the O.P. No 2 in the civil revision case that the matter was taken up for hearing on 17^th of July,2025 under the heading ‘Motion’ but unfortunately at the time of hearing the Learned Advocate representing the O.P. could not appear as a result the revisional application is disposed of and allowed without hearing the Opposite Party.

2. It is further submitted that on multiple occasion in the daily cause list the matter appeared under the heading motion and on all such earlier dates prior to 17th July, 2025 the learned advocate representing the petitioner duly appeared and the matter stood adjourned either at the behest of this petitioner/Opposite Party or at the instance of the petitioner. However on the said date the said revisional application was inadvertently taken up for hearing in absence of petitioner’s advocate.

3. It is further submitted that on the next day that is on 18^th of July, 2025 the matter was not published in the daily list and later on was surprised to learn that the matter had been allowed on 17th of July in absence of the Opposite Party. Accordingly this application has been filed for re-calling of such order as in otherwise the Learned Advocate is ready and willing to appear at the time of hearing and could not do so because of his pre-occupation or engagement in another Court. Accordingly prays for re-calling of the order passed by this Court whereby the revisional application were disposed of.

4. The Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner/ Opposite Party in this application raised vehement objection and submits that the revisional application is finally disposed of and the ground stated in the application to recall the order is not reasonable enough for which this Court will have to re-call such order of disposal.

5. Heard both the Learned Advocates. This case was specially assigned by the Hon’ble Chief Justice before this Court on 15.5.2025 and the matter was first taken up for consideration on 16th of May, 2025 when after hearing the petitioner direction was given to the petitioner to serve the copy of the application upon the O.P. by registered post with acknowledgement Due card and to file affidavit on their next date of hearing. An order of interim stay was also granted which was valid till 31^st July, 2025. On 12th of June, 2025 considering the submission on behalf of the petitioner about the reason for non-service as the address could not be located. The Learned Advocate was further directed to serve the copy of the application upon the Learned Advocate who is representing the O.P. before the Trial Court.

6. On 25^th June, 2025 when the matter appeared in the list then also none appeared on behalf of the Opposite Party and the Learned Advocate representing the petitioner filed the affidavit of service showing service upon the O.P in compliance with the direction of this Court. After that on 11^th of July, the matter appeared and at the request of the Advocate representing the petitioner the matter was again directed to appear on 15th July,2025 or any day thereafter as and when this Court will say. On that day no one appeared on behalf of the petitioner. Lastly on 17^th of July the matter was taken up for hearing when none appeared to represent the O.P. and the matter was heard in absence of the opposite party and dispose of the case. It was taken on record that despite service of notice upon the Learned Advocate representing the O.P. before the Learned Trial Court after failure to serve the notice t