BALBIR SINGH Vs. UNION BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have heard learned Counsel for the applicant, who has applied for recall of the order dated 18.5.2005 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in which one of us (Hon. Lmcshwar Pandey. J.) was a Member. The other Hon'ble Judge, Lion. S.P. Srivasuiva, J. has since retired. The order was passed about 1 years ago. It is difficult to remember what had transpired in Court on that date. Therefore we have to proceed on the basis of the record. The order dated 18.5.2005 specifically states in its opening line that the learned Counsel for the petitioner has been heard. Thereafter the order proceeds to dismiss the writ petition on merits. The petitioner has sought recall of that order on the averment that the counsel for the petitioner was not heard. In support of his averment the petitioner has tiled affidavits of both the learned Counsel who had filed appearances on behalf of the petitioner upto the date of judgment, i.e. 18.5.2005.

(2.) On the strength of the affidavit of two lawyers, who say that they have not been heard, the petitioner wants us to hold that the two Hon'ble Judges of this Court have, for some unexplained reason, written in the judgment that 'The counsel for the petitioner has been heard."

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon a Supreme Court decision in the case of Rais Ahmad v. State of U.P. and Ors. (2000) I UPLBEC 32. The case has no application whatsoever to the facts of the present case. Before the Supreme Court the case was that an 'illness slip' had been sent by the Counsel, it was not brought to the notice of the Court and the Court proceeded to decide the matter.