UTTAM CHAND SHARMA Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant/petitioner has preferred this application for recalling the following statement given at the Bar on 19.8.2009:

(2.) RESPONDENT No. 2 has filed reply to this application. In the preliminary objection, it is claimed that the application is barred under Order 2 Rule 2 CPC. It is further contended that the statement in question cannot be said to have been given inadvertently as the learned counsel for the petitioner knowingly and purposely withdrew relief 7(a). It is also claimed that the petitioner is also estopped from filing the application due to his act and conduct, particularly when more than five years have elapsed and no steps whatsoever had been taken for recalling of the statement.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Advocate General for respondent No. 1, learned counsel for respondent No. 3 and respondent No. 2, who appeared in person.