Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
When can a Recalling Application be Filed?
Timing and Limitations for Filing:
Legal Grounds and Procedure:
Circumstances for Filing:
Restrictions and Limitations:
Analysis and Conclusion:A Recalling Application can be filed after the relevant order or evidence closure, typically within the statutory limitation period (often 30 days). It must be based on legitimate grounds such as serving justice, preventing abuse, or correcting procedural errors. Courts are cautious about late filings and often require justified reasons, with some allowing condonation of delay. The permissible scope includes recalling witnesses for further cross-examination or orders for reopening proceedings, but applications aimed at merely filling procedural lacunae or seeking rehearing without proper grounds are usually dismissed. The specific procedural provisions (e.g., Sections 151 CPC, Cr.P.C., or Rules of Civil Procedure) govern the filing and acceptance of such applications.
References:- 2023 0 Supreme(AP) 1623: Recalling applications filed to reopen suit for cross-examination, dismissed due to delay and lack of justifiable cause.- 2024 0 Supreme(Cal) 554: Recalling applications filed after 30 days, considered barred by limitation.- 2023 0 Supreme(Mad) 2477: Applications for recall filed at belated stages, objected to on procedural grounds.- 2025 Supreme(Online)(J&K) 1397: Application under Section 151 CPC for recalling withdrawal order within time, with considerations of procedural correctness.- 2023 0 Supreme(MP) 30: Applications to recall witnesses under Section 311 Cr.P.C., typically allowed if justified.- 2024 0 Supreme(Del) 573 and 2023 0 Supreme(Del) 188: Applications under Section 151 CPC for recalling orders, with courts requiring valid reasons and sometimes condoning delays.
In the intricate world of Indian litigation, court orders and judgments form the backbone of justice. However, circumstances sometimes demand revisiting these decisions. One such remedy is the , a tool to challenge or reopen orders under specific conditions. But when can a be filed? This question arises frequently for litigants facing procedural hurdles, allegations, or newly discovered evidence.
This blog post explores the legal principles, grounds, restrictions, and practical insights from judicial precedents. Note that this is general information based on established case law and should not be considered specific legal advice. Always consult a qualified lawyer for your case.
Recalling applications are not routine remedies but are invoked under , often under or for witnesses. Courts permit them only on valid grounds that strike at the root of the order.
Key conditions include:- Inherent lack of jurisdiction or jurisdictional errors: If the court lacked authority ab initio, recall is viable. 2023 0 Supreme(Raj) 1210 2000 6 Supreme 58- , , or : These vitiate the order, especially if undermines its foundation. 2021 1 Supreme 625 2004 8 Supreme 1- Mistakes or errors in jurisdiction or : These must substantially prejudice a party. 2023 0 Supreme(Raj) 1210 2000 6 Supreme 58- of high magnitude: Such as undisclosed , unavailable earlier, that fundamentally alters the case. 2021 1 Supreme 625 2004 8 Supreme 1- Settlement or compromise: Rendering the original order unnecessary. 2023 0 Supreme(Raj) 1210
For instance, courts have emphasized that of 'significant dimension' keeps the recall remedy open even post-finality, as it prevents miscarriage of justice. 2021 1 Supreme 625 2004 8 Supreme 1
Not all orders qualify for recall. Courts impose strict limits to uphold finality and prevent abuse:- Interlocutory or : Orders like process issuance under are non-reviewable by the same court. 1999 5 Supreme 49 2004 6 Supreme 371- Second applications barred: Unless based on new facts, evidence of , or misconduct of exceptional degree. 2021 1 Supreme 625 2004 8 Supreme 1- No recall if grounds were earlier available: Or if appeal/revision remedies were ignored. 2023 0 Supreme(Raj) 1210 1999 5 Supreme 49
In civil and criminal cases, preliminary hearing orders are typically interlocutory and challengeable via revision or writs, not recall. 1999 5 Supreme 49 2004 6 Supreme 371 2000 2 Supreme 294
Under CPC provisions like () or (recall of withdrawal), recalls address defaults or compromises. For example, in one case, an application under CPC for recalling a withdrawal order was considered timely if within limits. 2025 Supreme(Online)(J&K) 1397
Section 311 allows recalling witnesses for further examination, but not to '' post- statement. 2023 0 Supreme(MP) 30 Courts dismissed applications filed belatedly to reopen cross-examination, noting they aimed to plug gaps without cogent reasons. 2023 0 Supreme(AP) 1623
High-level , however, overrides finality, invoking inherent powers. 2021 1 Supreme 625 2004 8 Supreme 1
Timing is critical. Recalling applications are typically filed post-order or evidence closure, often within 30 days, though condonation under may apply if justified.
Courts dismiss applications prolonging trials or lacking justification, e.g., recalling PW3 in 2018 for a 2010 document was allowed in one case but scrutinized. 2024 0 Supreme(Cal) 289
Courts wield recall powers judiciously, demanding strong reasons like jurisdictional defects or irrefutable . 2023 0 Supreme(Raj) 1210 2000 6 Supreme 58 Arbitrary use is discouraged; it must serve truth and justice.
01700000009637
Repeated applications, as in 2024 0 Supreme(Del) 573, for recalling PW-1 and PW-4 were dismissed, emphasizing no rehearing without new grounds. Similarly, post-2007 order recalls were rejected for prolixity. 2019 0 Supreme(Cal) 676
Recommendations:- Gather clear evidence of /jurisdiction issues before filing.- Opt for revision/writs for .- Support with precedents; courts prioritize justice over technicalities.
In summary, while recalling applications safeguard justice, they are exceptional remedies. Understanding these nuances can prevent futile efforts and guide strategic litigation. For tailored advice, engage legal experts.
(Word count: 1028. References are to specific case IDs for verification.)
#RecallingApplication, #IndianLaw, #CourtRecall
Finally on 01.03.2023 the matter was heard on sides and posted for judgment on 07.03.2023, but on the day, the application for recalling the DW1 and 3 filed and to reopen the suit for further cross examination. ... Moreover, the application is filed at belated stage without cogent reasons, which is filed to fill up the lacunae. Therefore, trial court dismissed the application#H....
Thaker that the order of the recalling has been sought was passed on 1st November 2023; the instant application for recalling was filed on 20th December 2023 i.e. after the period of 30 days; the application for recalling is appeared to be barred by limitation but the applicant has not filed a separate ... This is an application for recalling....
The said application was stoutly objected by the plaintiff as well as the 33rd defendant, on the ground that having engaged the counsel of the 33rd respondent and filed a memo adopting the written statement of the 33rd defendant, the very conduct of the petitioner in filing the application, latter on ... forward to mark certain additional documents through cross examination, an application has not been filed#HL_E....
The same had been filed by way of a firisti sometime in December 2010. Sometime in 2018, the opposite party No.1 filed an application for recalling PW3 to prove the hand written document. The learned trial judge allowed such prayer. ... By the order impugned, the learned court allowed the application on the ground that a similar application to prove the same document had been allowed in ....
filed before the trial court was not filed under O.9 R.9 of CPC for restoration of the suit dismissed in default but it was an application filed under S.151 read with O.23, R.3A of CPC for recalling of the order of withdrawal of the suit; that the application was within time as it is covered by the ... He further stated that the application for recalling#HL_EN....
Ebrahim Haji Husen Sanghani & Ors.) decided on 23.06.2000 wherein it has been reiterated that after recording the statement of accused under section 313 Cr.P.C. the prosecution cannot file an application for recalling prosecution witness to fill up the lacuna. ... Ratlam in Sessions Trial No.05/2016 whereby the application filed under section 311 Cr.P.C. for recall of witness in Crime No.276/2015 by the respondent prosecut....
The petitioner thereafter, again, filed an application under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C., again praying for recalling of PW-1 and this time, also of PW-4, the father of the victim, for further cross-examination. ... Narender Singh, dismissing the application filed under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. by the petitioner seeking recalling of the victim (PW-1) and her mother/complainant (PW-2) fo....
Officer or to the Settlement Officer, no further application by the same person shall be entertained by any other of them meaning thereby if any person has already filed a revision under Section 219 before any of the authority referred above, no second application under this Section shall lie to the ... In response to the first leg of challenge, i.e., on the procedural aspect, we may note that the recall application was #H....
No. 775/2023 (Recalling of order dated 26th September, 2022) 1. ... The instant application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking the following relief: “(a) Recall order dated 26.09.2022 passed by the Hon'ble Court and the present petition be decided on merits again.....” ... For the reason stated in the application, the delay of 76 days in filing the reca....
The present application (CRAN 1 of 2023) has been preferred by the petitioner/accused praying for recalling of the Order dated July 19, 2022 passed by a Co-ordinate Bench, thereby dismissing CRR No. 2565 of 2019 ( Daanish Haque v. ... (vi) Vide an order dated 02.05.2023 the trial Judge noted that one of the two applications filed before it was an application under Section 173 (8) of Cr.P.C. by the opposite party herein. ....
This Court has given elaborate reasons in the order dated 26th June, 2018, why the earlier application for recalling of the order dated 2nd May, 2007, could not be allowed. In order to avoid prolixity, we choose not to repeat or reiterate what had been elaborated in the earlier judgment dated 26th June, 2018. A recalling application was filed seeking recall of the order dated 2nd May, 2007. On 2nd May, 2007, the appeal was again dismissed - after its restoration - since no st....
In the meantime, an application was also made by the Respondent No.1 on 12th December 2005 to the Assistant Commissioner for intervention in their demand. Thereafter the application was filed for recalling the order dated 26th April 2005, somewhere in 2006.
On 15th September 2017 the present application was filed for recalling/vacating the impugned order dated 19th July 2017. This impugned order dated 19th July 2017, according to respondentapplicant, is an order in excess of jurisdiction conferred upon a company court and hence is liable to be recalled/vacated.
On 15th September 2017 the present application was filed for recalling/vacating the impugned order dated 19th July 2017. This impugned order dated 19th July 2017, according to respondent applicant, is an order in excess of jurisdiction conferred upon a company court and hence is liable to be recalled/vacated.
By order dated 1st November, 2006 the Ld. DRT-2 allowed the application for condonation of delay and the application for setting aside of the exparte judgment continued to remain...." (Emphasis Added). An application for condonation of delay, if any, in filing the recalling application was also filed. It was on the ground of non-service of notice/summons in T.A. No. 251 of 1996.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
