LAWS(BOM)-1997-1-102

GOPAL NATHAN Vs. R S OBEROI

Decided On January 30, 1997
Gopal Nathan Appellant
V/S
R S Oberoi Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. Nusrat Shah, for the applicant and Mrs. Pawar, the learned APP for the State in Criminal Application No. 254/97, and also heard Mr. Rahul Rao for the applicant, Mr. Y.S. Bhate for Respondent No.1 and Mrs. Pawar the learned APP for the State in Criminal Application Nos. 267/97 and Cr. Application No.268/97.

(2.) SO far as Cr. Application No.254/97 is concerned, Mr. Shah states that he had given notice to this application to Mr. Marvadi, the learned advocate for the petitioner, but, Mr.Marvadi declined to accept the notice. Mr. Shah has tendered a copy of the letter dt. 28th Jan. 1997, sent by the him by speed post to Mr. Marvadi. This application is filed by the original respondent for setting aside my order dt. 8th Jan. 1997, and for rehearing the writ petition No. 137/88 on merits. According to Mr. Shah, firstly, this was an exparte order because there was not given an opportunity of being heard. Secondly, the petition was dismissed in default, was restored and no notice after restoration was given to him. Thirdly, there is a fatal error in my order dt. 8th Jan. 1997, which can only be corrected if the matter is reopened and lastly according to him, this Court has power to review its own order or at any rate, the court can recall its own order under section 482 Cr.P.C.

(3.) IN all these three applications, common ground were raised by Mr. Shah and by Mr. Rahul Rao in support of their application for reopening the matter or for reviewing or recalling or setting aside my earlier order. Both of them contented that these three respective writ petition were dismissed in default, but were restored on the same day and no notice were given to them before they were heard and finally decided. Both of them contented that no opportunity was given to them to be heard in the matters. They relied upon some authorites in support of their contention that firstly, this court has powers of reviewing its own orders and alternatively under the inherent powers, the court can recall its order and the matters.