Courts should avoid taking a hyper-technical view regarding delays in filing recall applications when the party has demonstrated a bona fide attempt to rectify a procedural mistake and acted upon the court's specific liberty to file the application.

O R D E R>

(Hybrid Mode)>

Heard Shri Abhishek Anand, Learned Counsel for the Appellant, and perused the records.

2. We notice that the Respondents have already been served by the Appellant through e-mail. Otherwise also the nature of the order we intend to pass is such whereby the rights of the Respondents would not be adversely affected. Thus, theissuance of any further notices to the Respondent is hereby dispensed with.

3. The instant appeal has been filed by the Appellant, who was arrayed as Respondent No. 12 in I.A. No. 4775 of 2020, moved under Section 47 of the Code, whereby the I.A. No. 2813 of 2026, moved by the Appellant, has been dismissed onthe ground that the same has been preferred with considerable delay.

4. Learned Counsel for the Appellant has drawn our attention towards the order passed by the Learned Adjudicating Authority on 07.11.2024, in I.A. No. 4775 of 2020, whereby an opportunity to file the reply was provided to Respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 3 and for other Respondents the proceedings were set ex-parte,including the Appellant, who was arrayed as Respondent No. 11.

5. It is indicated by the Learned Counsel for the Appellant that the Appellant herein was arrayed as Respondent No. 11 before the Learned Adjudicating Authority and the perusal of order dated 07.11.2024 would reveal that Respondent Nos. 11 to 13 to that proceedings were represented before the Learned Adjudicating Authority on that day through their Advocate, Shri Dhruv Pande and even in the presence of the Counsel for Respondent No. 11, the proceedings were directed toproceed ex-parte.

6. It is further submitted that, on 03.01.2025, when I.A. No. 4775 of 2020 was next listed, it was again observed by Learned Adjudicating Authority that the proceedings against the other Respondents, except Respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 3, hadalready been set as ex-parte.

7. It is further submitted that to recall the order dated 03.01.2025 and I.A. No. 1651 of 2025 was filed by the Appellant and the same was listed on 15.04.2025 whereon after hearing the parties the order dated on 03.01.2025, was set aside by the Learned Adjudicating Authority and the reply which was enclosed with the application was taken on record and so much so the Applicant of that application (I.A. No. 4775 of 2020) was also given opportunity to file the rejoinder vis-à-vis thereply filed by the Appellant.

8. It is further submitted that, vide order dated 19.02.2026, the Counsel for the Applicant in I.A. No. 4775 of 2020 was further given two weeks’ time to file the rejoinder. It is however, on the same day the I.A. No. 1651 of 2025, pertaining to which an order was already passed on 15.05.2025, setting aside the order dated 03.01.2025, has been reopened and the same was disposed of in terms of I.A. No. 3948 of 2025 (The I.A. No. 3948 of 2025 was dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty given to move appropriate application to recall the order dated 07.11.2024). Thus, Appellant was also given opportunity to move appropriate application torecall order dated 07.11.2024.

9. It is further submitted that I.A. No. 2813 of 2026 was moved by the Appellant, in pursuance of the liberty given by the Learned Adjudicating Authority for recall of the order dated 07.11.2024, however, by passing the impugned order the same has been dismissed only on the ground that the application has beenmoved with considerable delay.

10. It is vehemently submitted that there was no delay on the part of the Appellant in moving the application, as under some inadvertent mistake he has earlier moved an application I.A. No. 1651 of 2025 to recall the order dated 03.01.2025 instead of order dated 07.11.2024 and by passing an order dated 15.05.2025 the order dated 03.01.2025 was set aside/recalled and the reply filed by the Appellant along with that application was also taken on record. The subsequent I.A. No. 2813 of 2026 was moved under the direction of the Learned Adjudicating Authority passed on 19.02.2026, thus the impugned order may