Single judge held that recalling an earlier, unacted order to avoid technical irregularities was not illegal and that the revisional petition might be dismissed.
Revisional application disposed of without any orders as there was no illegality in the impugned order.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
ML. 131 14.08.2023 Court. No. 19 GB
C.O. 145 of 2023
Abu Salam Gazi Vs. Dilsad Ali Sk. & Ors.
Mr. Gazi Faruque Hossain, Ms. Priyanka Mondal
… for the Petitioner.
The petitioner is the defendant in Title Suit No.116 of 2013. The defendant is aggrieved by an order dated November 10, 2022, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 3rd Court at Baruipur.
By the order impugned, the recalling application filed by the plaintiff for recall of the order no.53 dated July 25, 2019 was allowed. The petitioner opposes such order on the ground that the order no.53 was an earlier order by which an application under Order 39, Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure was allowed and a commissioner was appointed. Again on the same application dated August 21, 2018, another order was passed being order no.54 by which another learned commissioner was appointed. However, the writ was not issued in favour of the commissioner who was appointed by order no.53. The order no.53 was not acted upon.
As the report of the commission was already on record after the commission work was completed vide order no.54, in order to avoid technical irregularities in the proceedings, the learned court recalled the order no.53, which has not caused any injustice to any of the parties as the order no.53
2
had not been acted upon and the defendant did not acquire any right on the basis of such order.
I do not find any illegality in the order impugned. It was just correction of a mistake.
Accordingly, the revisional application is disposed of without any orders.
However, there will be no order as to costs.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis.
(Shampa Sarkar, J.)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the recall of an unacted impugned order passed under Order 39 Rule 7 of CPC by the lower court in a revisional proceeding was illegal.
Whether the revisional application against a clerical correction of a mistake needs a formal order.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Abu Salam Gazi
Dilsad Ali Sk.
Shampa Sarkar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
