8. Controverting the said submissions, Sri Gaurav Mehrotra, learned Counsel for the opposite party no.2 argues that admittedly, when the O.A. was heard, the same was during the COVID period and there was disconnections in the internet connections as such, arguments could not be advanced, for which an application was also filed by the petitioner for rehearing, however, the judgment was pronounced without even taking into consideration the arguments that needed to be advanced on behalf of the opposite party and thus, under the advise, the opposite party had filed an application under Section 22(2) read with Section 19(25) for recalling of the order. He further argues that merely because the sub-section of Section 22 was not mentioned, the same could not effect the merits of the order. It is argued that it is well settled that merely because the section is not property described that the same could not denude the court from exercising the powers which are otherwise vested in the court. He further states that in terms of the mandate of Section 22(2) specifically clause (e) of the said provisions confers the power of reviewing on the DRT. He further argues that it is otherwise merely settled that even if, the power of substantive review is not conferred, the power of procedural review is inherent in all the courts and in the present case, the case of the opposite party was that the hearing could not be accorded properly on account of disruption in the internet connectivity. He further argues that it is well settled that the power of alternative remedy is not an absolute bar and can be exercised in the circumstances as carved out, however, it is essential that the petitioner coming before this Court has to specifically plead the prejudice caused on account of the said order
