[2026:RJ-JP:2816-DB]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 160/2025 In D.B. Civil Review Petition No.33/2025 In D.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.300/2023

1. State of Rajasthan, Through District Collector, Baran (Raj.).

2. Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Kota Zone, Kota.

3. Executive Engineer, Water Resources Division Second, Chhabra, District Baran (Raj.).

----Appellant/Petitioners Versus M/s. Manda Developers And Builders Private Limited, Shiv Shakti Vihar, Opposite 220 K.V. Power House, Jaipur Road, Bikaner- 334001 Through Power Of Attorney Holder Hardayal Singh (General Manager Technical), S/o Shri Kripal Singh, Aged About 77 Years, R/o B-2/2, Patel Nagar, Bikaner (Rajasthan) Mr. Sumit Manda S/o Shri Hari Ram Manda, Aged About 33 Years, Resident Of 202, Shubh Ratan Platinum, Bani Park, Jaipur Presently I Am Director And Authorized Person.

----Appellant/Respondent/Claimant For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R.P. Garg HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEET PUROHIT (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING)

Order

21/01/2026

1. An application has been moved for recalling of the order passed by this Court dated 31.10.2025 on the premise that on the said date, there was a bomb threat in the High Court and the entire building of the High Court was vacated as a precautionary measure and the President of the Rajasthan High Court Bar Association, Jaipur sent a communication on WhatsApp to the members of the Bar that the work shall remain suspended for the day, resulting in the petitioner’s counsel not being available at the time when the order was passed.

2. Learned counsel submits that the order passed by this Court dated 31.10.2025 deserves to be recalled and the claim set up in the review petition ought to be examined afresh.

3. He further submits that the claim set up before the Arbitrator and examined before the Commercial Court under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 was severable and, therefore, this Court ought to have severed the part which could be accepted and deleted the part which was required to be quashed from the award as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Gayatri Balasamy vs. M/s. ISG Novasoft Technologies Ltd.” (2025) 7 SCC 1.

4. At the outset, we notice that this Court had nowhere issued an order suspending the work on account of the threat of bomb blast. The Court premises were vacated only for the purpose of checking and once the Police Authorities cleared and found that it was a hoax, the Court resumed its functioning. In fact, if the Courts do not resume functioning, it would amount to virtually playing in the hands of terrorists who make such hoax threats of bomb blast. Their purpose would be achieved if the work would have been suspended. It is for this reason that the Court functions. The lawyers should have taken a call accordingly.

5. Be that as it may, we have heard the learned counsel afresh but we do not find any reason to review our order, as we have given a finding that the claim was not severable.

6. The order dated 31.10.2025 passed by this Court holds that the claim was not severable and examining the aspect does not come within the four corners of scope of review.

7. The present application for recalling, therefore, on that count fails and is accordingly dismissed.

(SANJEET PUROHIT),J (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),ACJ DEEPTA ARORA /4