SURINDER KUMAR Vs. RAM DITTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assails the order dtd. 28/9/2021, passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge ("the learned SCJ") in RC ARC 78979/2016 (Surinder Kumar v. Ram Ditti). The impugned order reads thus: Surinder Kumar Vs. Ram Ditti 28/9/2021 Present:- Ld. Counsel for the parties. Fresh vakalamama filed on behalf of respondent no. 2,3,4 and 5. Matter is listed for final arguments. An application for recalling of order dtd. 26/3/2021 has been filed on behalf of respondents. Arguments heard. Application is perused. In view of the submissions and reasons mentioned, the application is allowed. Put up for further RE on 4/10/2021. Sd. (Aditi Garg) SCJ-cum-RC: Central District: 28/9/2021"

(2.) I may note, at the very outset, that an order such as that impugned in the present petition cannot, legally, be passed. An application seeking recall of an order cannot be allowed without any reasons whatsoever. All that is said in the impugned order is that, in view of the submissions and reasons mentioned in the recall application, the application is allowed and the order dtd. 26/3/2021 is recalled. On the face of it, this order is perfunctory, and ought not to have been passed in such a fashion.

(3.) In order to avoid multiplicity of litigation, I have, nonetheless, examined the order dtd. 26/3/2021 as well as the application seeking recall of the said order. The order dtd. 26/3/2021 reads thus: Surinder Kumar Vs. Ram Ditti 26/3/2021 Present: Ld. counsel for petitioner. One Sh. Jitender Kumar has appeared. However, the name of Sh. Jitender Kumar does not figure in the memo of parties. As per Court record, last and final opportunity was granted to respondent to lead RE. Previously also RE was closed vide order dtd. 20/8/2019 and thereafter, same was re-opened vide order dtd. 3/10/2019. On 10/1/2020, it has been directed that in case respondent does not lead evidence, RE would be closed. Since, No RW present today and considering the previous conduct of the respondent, RE is hereby closed. Re-list for final arguments on 10/5/2021. Sd. (Aditi Garg) SCJ-cum-RC: Central District: 26/3/2021"