Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
When can a Recalling Application be Filed?
Timing and Limitations for Filing:
Legal Grounds and Procedure:
Circumstances for Filing:
Restrictions and Limitations:
Analysis and Conclusion:A Recalling Application can be filed after the relevant order or evidence closure, typically within the statutory limitation period (often 30 days). It must be based on legitimate grounds such as serving justice, preventing abuse, or correcting procedural errors. Courts are cautious about late filings and often require justified reasons, with some allowing condonation of delay. The permissible scope includes recalling witnesses for further cross-examination or orders for reopening proceedings, but applications aimed at merely filling procedural lacunae or seeking rehearing without proper grounds are usually dismissed. The specific procedural provisions (e.g., Sections 151 CPC, Cr.P.C., or Rules of Civil Procedure) govern the filing and acceptance of such applications.
References:- Battini Srinivas Rao VS Konuri Venkata Chalapathi Rao - 2023 Supreme(AP) 1623 - 2023 0 Supreme(AP) 1623: Recalling applications filed to reopen suit for cross-examination, dismissed due to delay and lack of justifiable cause.- Jai Badrinath Niketan Pvt. Ltd. VS Mandipa Properties Private Ltd. - 2024 Supreme(Cal) 554 - 2024 0 Supreme(Cal) 554: Recalling applications filed after 30 days, considered barred by limitation.- Pakkiam @ Pakkialakshmi VS Meenal - 2023 Supreme(Mad) 2477 - 2023 0 Supreme(Mad) 2477: Applications for recall filed at belated stages, objected to on procedural grounds.- Mohammad Ishaq Dar v. Usman Syed Shah - 2025 Supreme(Online)(J&K) 1397 - 2025 Supreme(Online)(J&K) 1397: Application under Section 151 CPC for recalling withdrawal order within time, with considerations of procedural correctness.- Shankarlal VS State of M. P. - 2023 Supreme(MP) 30 - 2023 0 Supreme(MP) 30: Applications to recall witnesses under Section 311 Cr.P.C., typically allowed if justified.- Narender Singh VS State - 2024 Supreme(Del) 573 - 2024 0 Supreme(Del) 573 and DAYA ENGG. WORKS (SLEEPER) LTD. VS UNION OF INDIA - 2023 Supreme(Del) 188 - 2023 0 Supreme(Del) 188: Applications under Section 151 CPC for recalling orders, with courts requiring valid reasons and sometimes condoning delays.
In the intricate world of Indian litigation, court orders and judgments form the backbone of justice. However, circumstances sometimes demand revisiting these decisions. One such remedy is the recalling application, a tool to challenge or reopen orders under specific conditions. But when can a recalling application be filed? This question arises frequently for litigants facing procedural hurdles, fraud allegations, or newly discovered evidence.
This blog post explores the legal principles, grounds, restrictions, and practical insights from judicial precedents. Note that this is general information based on established case law and should not be considered specific legal advice. Always consult a qualified lawyer for your case.
Recalling applications are not routine remedies but are invoked under inherent court powers, often under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) or Section 311 of the CrPC for witnesses. Courts permit them only on valid grounds that strike at the root of the order.
Key conditions include:- Inherent lack of jurisdiction or jurisdictional errors: If the court lacked authority ab initio, recall is viable. Mumal, D/o. Late Shri Narayan Ram, W/o. Shri Chunni Lal VS State Of Rajasthan, Through The Tehsildar - 2023 0 Supreme(Raj) 1210Delhi Administration VS Gurdip Singh Uban - 2000 6 Supreme 58- Fraud, collusion, or misrepresentation: These vitiate the order, especially if fraud undermines its foundation. NEELAM MANMOHAN ATTAVAR VS MANMOHAN ATTAVAR - 2021 1 Supreme 625Daulat Ram VS Sodha - 2004 8 Supreme 1- Mistakes or errors in jurisdiction or procedural irregularities: These must substantially prejudice a party. Mumal, D/o. Late Shri Narayan Ram, W/o. Shri Chunni Lal VS State Of Rajasthan, Through The Tehsildar - 2023 0 Supreme(Raj) 1210Delhi Administration VS Gurdip Singh Uban - 2000 6 Supreme 58- Newly discovered facts of high magnitude: Such as undisclosed fraud, unavailable earlier, that fundamentally alters the case. NEELAM MANMOHAN ATTAVAR VS MANMOHAN ATTAVAR - 2021 1 Supreme 625Daulat Ram VS Sodha - 2004 8 Supreme 1- Settlement or compromise: Rendering the original order unnecessary. Mumal, D/o. Late Shri Narayan Ram, W/o. Shri Chunni Lal VS State Of Rajasthan, Through The Tehsildar - 2023 0 Supreme(Raj) 1210
For instance, courts have emphasized that fraud of 'significant dimension' keeps the recall remedy open even post-finality, as it prevents miscarriage of justice. NEELAM MANMOHAN ATTAVAR VS MANMOHAN ATTAVAR - 2021 1 Supreme 625Daulat Ram VS Sodha - 2004 8 Supreme 1
Not all orders qualify for recall. Courts impose strict limits to uphold finality and prevent abuse:- Interlocutory or preliminary orders: Orders like process issuance under Section 204 CrPC are non-reviewable by the same court. Budhia Swain VS Gopinath Deb - 1999 5 Supreme 49Adalat Prasad VS Rooplaljindal - 2004 6 Supreme 371- Second applications barred: Unless based on new facts, evidence of fraud, or misconduct of exceptional degree. NEELAM MANMOHAN ATTAVAR VS MANMOHAN ATTAVAR - 2021 1 Supreme 625Daulat Ram VS Sodha - 2004 8 Supreme 1- No recall if grounds were earlier available: Or if appeal/revision remedies were ignored. Mumal, D/o. Late Shri Narayan Ram, W/o. Shri Chunni Lal VS State Of Rajasthan, Through The Tehsildar - 2023 0 Supreme(Raj) 1210Budhia Swain VS Gopinath Deb - 1999 5 Supreme 49
In civil and criminal cases, preliminary hearing orders are typically interlocutory and challengeable via revision or writs, not recall. Budhia Swain VS Gopinath Deb - 1999 5 Supreme 49Adalat Prasad VS Rooplaljindal - 2004 6 Supreme 371United India Insurance Company LTD. : United India Insurance Co. LTD. VS Rajendra Singh: Sanjay Singh - 2000 2 Supreme 294
Under CPC provisions like O.9 R.9 (restoration) or O.23 R.3A (recall of withdrawal), recalls address defaults or compromises. For example, in one case, an application under S.151 read with O.23 R.3A CPC for recalling a withdrawal order was considered timely if within limits. Mohammad Ishaq Dar v. Usman Syed Shah - 2025 Supreme(Online)(J&K) 1397
Section 311 CrPC allows recalling witnesses for further examination, but not to 'fill lacunae' post-Section 313 statement. Shankarlal VS State of M. P. - 2023 0 Supreme(MP) 30 Courts dismissed applications filed belatedly to reopen cross-examination, noting they aimed to plug gaps without cogent reasons. Battini Srinivas Rao VS Konuri Venkata Chalapathi Rao - 2023 0 Supreme(AP) 1623
High-level fraud, however, overrides finality, invoking inherent powers. NEELAM MANMOHAN ATTAVAR VS MANMOHAN ATTAVAR - 2021 1 Supreme 625Daulat Ram VS Sodha - 2004 8 Supreme 1
Timing is critical. Recalling applications are typically filed post-order or evidence closure, often within 30 days, though condonation under Section 5 of the Limitation Act may apply if justified.
Courts dismiss applications prolonging trials or lacking justification, e.g., recalling PW3 in 2018 for a 2010 document was allowed in one case but scrutinized. Arindam Bose VS Sarvadeva Paul Majumdar - 2024 0 Supreme(Cal) 289
Courts wield recall powers judiciously, demanding strong reasons like jurisdictional defects or irrefutable fraud. Mumal, D/o. Late Shri Narayan Ram, W/o. Shri Chunni Lal VS State Of Rajasthan, Through The Tehsildar - 2023 0 Supreme(Raj) 1210Delhi Administration VS Gurdip Singh Uban - 2000 6 Supreme 58 Arbitrary use is discouraged; it must serve truth and justice. 01700000009637
Repeated applications, as in Narender Singh VS State - 2024 0 Supreme(Del) 573, for recalling PW-1 and PW-4 were dismissed, emphasizing no rehearing without new grounds. Similarly, post-2007 order recalls were rejected for prolixity. Monoranjan Mondal VS State of West Bengal - 2019 Supreme(Cal) 676 - 2019 0 Supreme(Cal) 676
Recommendations:- Gather clear evidence of fraud/jurisdiction issues before filing.- Opt for revision/writs for preliminary orders.- Support with precedents; courts prioritize justice over technicalities.
In summary, while recalling applications safeguard justice, they are exceptional remedies. Understanding these nuances can prevent futile efforts and guide strategic litigation. For tailored advice, engage legal experts.
(Word count: 1028. References are to specific case IDs for verification.)
#RecallingApplication, #IndianLaw, #CourtRecall
Finally on 01.03.2023 the matter was heard on sides and posted for judgment on 07.03.2023, but on the day, the application for recalling the DW1 and 3 filed and to reopen the suit for further cross examination. ... Moreover, the application is filed at belated stage without cogent reasons, which is filed to fill up the lacunae. Therefore, trial court dismissed the application#H....
Thaker that the order of the recalling has been sought was passed on 1st November 2023; the instant application for recalling was filed on 20th December 2023 i.e. after the period of 30 days; the application for recalling is appeared to be barred by limitation but the applicant has not filed a separate ... This is an application for recalling....
The said application was stoutly objected by the plaintiff as well as the 33rd defendant, on the ground that having engaged the counsel of the 33rd respondent and filed a memo adopting the written statement of the 33rd defendant, the very conduct of the petitioner in filing the application, latter on ... forward to mark certain additional documents through cross examination, an application has not been filed#HL_E....
The same had been filed by way of a firisti sometime in December 2010. Sometime in 2018, the opposite party No.1 filed an application for recalling PW3 to prove the hand written document. The learned trial judge allowed such prayer. ... By the order impugned, the learned court allowed the application on the ground that a similar application to prove the same document had been allowed in ....
filed before the trial court was not filed under O.9 R.9 of CPC for restoration of the suit dismissed in default but it was an application filed under S.151 read with O.23, R.3A of CPC for recalling of the order of withdrawal of the suit; that the application was within time as it is covered by the ... He further stated that the application for recalling#HL_EN....
Ebrahim Haji Husen Sanghani & Ors.) decided on 23.06.2000 wherein it has been reiterated that after recording the statement of accused under section 313 Cr.P.C. the prosecution cannot file an application for recalling prosecution witness to fill up the lacuna. ... Ratlam in Sessions Trial No.05/2016 whereby the application filed under section 311 Cr.P.C. for recall of witness in Crime No.276/2015 by the respondent prosecut....
The petitioner thereafter, again, filed an application under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C., again praying for recalling of PW-1 and this time, also of PW-4, the father of the victim, for further cross-examination. ... Narender Singh, dismissing the application filed under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. by the petitioner seeking recalling of the victim (PW-1) and her mother/complainant (PW-2) fo....
Officer or to the Settlement Officer, no further application by the same person shall be entertained by any other of them meaning thereby if any person has already filed a revision under Section 219 before any of the authority referred above, no second application under this Section shall lie to the ... In response to the first leg of challenge, i.e., on the procedural aspect, we may note that the recall application was #H....
No. 775/2023 (Recalling of order dated 26th September, 2022) 1. ... The instant application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking the following relief: “(a) Recall order dated 26.09.2022 passed by the Hon'ble Court and the present petition be decided on merits again.....” ... For the reason stated in the application, the delay of 76 days in filing the reca....
The present application (CRAN 1 of 2023) has been preferred by the petitioner/accused praying for recalling of the Order dated July 19, 2022 passed by a Co-ordinate Bench, thereby dismissing CRR No. 2565 of 2019 ( Daanish Haque v. ... (vi) Vide an order dated 02.05.2023 the trial Judge noted that one of the two applications filed before it was an application under Section 173 (8) of Cr.P.C. by the opposite party herein. ....
This Court has given elaborate reasons in the order dated 26th June, 2018, why the earlier application for recalling of the order dated 2nd May, 2007, could not be allowed. In order to avoid prolixity, we choose not to repeat or reiterate what had been elaborated in the earlier judgment dated 26th June, 2018. A recalling application was filed seeking recall of the order dated 2nd May, 2007. On 2nd May, 2007, the appeal was again dismissed - after its restoration - since no st....
In the meantime, an application was also made by the Respondent No.1 on 12th December 2005 to the Assistant Commissioner for intervention in their demand. Thereafter the application was filed for recalling the order dated 26th April 2005, somewhere in 2006.
On 15th September 2017 the present application was filed for recalling/vacating the impugned order dated 19th July 2017. This impugned order dated 19th July 2017, according to respondentapplicant, is an order in excess of jurisdiction conferred upon a company court and hence is liable to be recalled/vacated.
On 15th September 2017 the present application was filed for recalling/vacating the impugned order dated 19th July 2017. This impugned order dated 19th July 2017, according to respondent applicant, is an order in excess of jurisdiction conferred upon a company court and hence is liable to be recalled/vacated.
By order dated 1st November, 2006 the Ld. DRT-2 allowed the application for condonation of delay and the application for setting aside of the exparte judgment continued to remain...." (Emphasis Added). An application for condonation of delay, if any, in filing the recalling application was also filed. It was on the ground of non-service of notice/summons in T.A. No. 251 of 1996.
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
