RAHUL JAIN Vs. NEHA JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application under Sec. 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed for recall of order dtd. 13/5/2024 passed in MCRC No.19092/2023.

(2.) It is submitted by counsel for applicant that although Vakalatnama was filed by applicant on 19/8/2023 but applicant came to Jabalpur on 1/2/2024 for preparation of return. All the documents which were necessary for filing of return were given to his counsel and necessary papers were also signed. Applicant was all the time misled by his earlier counsel that reply has been filed but in fact reply was not filed at all. It is further submitted that applicant had also paid fee to his counsel but even necessary fee payable on Vakalatnama was also not submitted by his counsel. It is further submitted that applicant has already approached the State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur by filing a complaint on 27/5/2024 in which he has specifically alleged in paragraph Nos.4 to 9 about professional misconduct committed by his earlier counsel. It is further submitted that since applicant was not negligent in prosecuting his case but it was on account of professional misconduct by his previous counsel, therefore, order dtd. 13/5/2024 passed in MCRC No.19092/2023 may be recalled. To buttress his contention, counsel for applicant has relied upon the judgment passed by Supreme Court in the case of Rafiq and another v. Munshilal and another, reported in (1981) 2 SCC 788. It is further submitted that in the light of judgment passed by Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab v. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar and another, reported in (2011) 14 SCC 770, application for recall of order is maintainable and it would not be hit by the provisions of Sec. 362 of Cr.P.C.

(3.) Heard learned counsel for applicant.