VED PARKASH Vs. RAJ RANI SINGLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application dated 25.9.2000 filed by the counsel for the respondents under Section 151, CPC, for recalling the order dated 29.5.2000, passed by this court.

(2.) In the application, it has been alleged that the counsel had filed the power of attorney on behalf of the respondents in the office of this court on 10.8.1999. It has been alleged that a notice was received from the office of this court that the case was to be listed for 3.4.2000. It has been alleged that on that day, there was a lawyers strike and the office of the Bar Association had not sent the cause list to the counsel for the respondents. It has been alleged that on 3.4.2000, the counsel had made enquiries from the office of this Court and it was told by the office that the case would come up for hearing in the regular list and as such, the counsel for the respondents could not find that the case was listed on 3.4.2000. It has been alleged that the counsel was under the impression that the case may not be listed for arguments. It has been alleged that thereafter on 18.9.2000 (nothing is mentioned as to what happened between 3.4.2000 to 18.9.2000), respondent No. 3, Som Nath came to the counsel for the respondents and told him that he had come to know on 14.9.2000 that the revision petition had already been decided by this court on 29.5.2000. It has been alleged that thereafter, the counsel for the respondents inspected the file and found that the case was decided by this Court on 29.5.2000. It has been alleged that it was on account of "unknowingly mistake" on the part of the counsel for the respondents that the revision petition had gone unattended by the counsel. It has been alleged that the non-appearance of the counsel was not intentional but was a bona fide mistake. It has been alleged that in the interest of justice and circumstances of the case, it is just and proper to recall the order dated 29.5.2000. No affidavit was filed in support of this application.

(3.) Notice of this application was ordered to be given to counsel for the petitioner.