ASISH BARAN MUKHERJEE, J. ( 1 ) THE revisional application was filed to quash the complaint case started on the basis of an application under Section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. being C/183/95 pending before the Ld. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. Calcutta. The O. P. No. 2 being the complainant in the revisional case made his appearance on 8-6-95. On 14-6-95 there was a hearing over extension of interim order in presence of the Ld. Advocates appearing for the petitioners O. P. No. 1 as also O. P. No. 2 and the matter was directed to appear as contested application on 30-6-95. On the said date the matter was adjourned. Subsequently, it was fixed for hearing being a Specially fixed matter on 5-1-96. On the said date none appeared in spite of repeated calls while the Ld. Advocates appearing for O. P. No. 1 and O. P. No. 2 were present. The matter was heard at length and revisional application was dismissed on merit on the said date. ( 2 ) ON 2-2-96 an application for recalling of the said order dated 5-1-96 was made by the petitioners being an application under Section 482 Cr. P. C. ( 3 ) THE case of the petitioners as appearing in the recall application is that the grounds taken in the revisional application could not be argued on 5-1-96 due to non-appearance of any of the Advocates appointed on his behalf. It is contended that on 4-1-96 the matter appeared in the Combined List and it was shown as specially fixed for hearing on 5-1-96 at 2 P. M. The Advocate for the petitioner namely, Shri Joydi Kar could not attend Court on 4-1-96 and 5-1-96 due to his mother's illness. The Clerk of the Ld. Advocate who was to look after matter also missed the matter in the List as shown on 4-1-96. The petitioners also engaged two other Advocates, namely, Shri Anindya Kr. Mitra and Shri Asim Kr. Roy. Shri Mitra was not contacted on 4-1-96 and as he was not apprised of matter, he could not also appear when the hearing was taken up on 5-1-96. The other Advocate, namely, Shri Asim Kr. Roy, who was appearing in the matter also did not appear on 5-1-96 as he did not get necessary instruction. It is submitted that Shri Asim Kr. Roy, the Ld. The other Advocate, namely, Shri Asim Kr. Roy, who was appearing in the matter also did not appear on 5-1-96 as he did not get necessary instruction. It is submitted that Shri Asim Kr. Roy, the Ld. Advocate was informed by his Clerk on 5-1-96 that the matter was going un-represented when Shri Roy went to the Court but by then order was already passed and signed. ( 4 ) IT is contended that petitioners had taken all of reasonable steps and also engaged three (3) Advocates for the purpose, but as none of them appeared his case went un-represented. The petitioner's representative was keeping constant vigil in the matter of contacting Advocates and kept himself posted with the progress of the matter. As the matter did not appear in the List from 8-1-96 onwards, the petitioners made an enquiry and was told that the matter would duly appear in the List. When the matter was not shown in the Cause List even on 15-1-96 an enquiry was caused by the Clerk of the Advocate of the petitioner and on 19-1-96 it could be ascertained that the matter has been dismissed on merit. The petitioner's Advocate thereafter contacted the petitioner and apprised the petitioner about the development in the matter and thereafter steps were taken for recalling the order dated 5-1-96. Accordingly, they have prayed for recall of the order dated 5-1-96 and for hearing the matter on merit. ( 5 ) THE petition for recall is supported by an affidavit from one Shri Vhaskar Sengupta, stated to be the Clerk under Shri Joydip Kar, Advocate. In course of his affidavit he stated that on 4-1-96 and also on 5-1-96 Shri Kar did not attend the Court due to his personal difficulties. It is alleged that in course of Looking up the list, he missed the matter and hence, he could not apprise the other Ld. Advocates to be present in the Court. ( 6 ) THIS prayer for recall has been seriously challenged by the Ld. Advocate appearing for the O. P. s. The matter was heard at length. It is alleged that in course of Looking up the list, he missed the matter and hence, he could not apprise the other Ld. Advocates to be present in the Court. ( 6 ) THIS prayer for recall has been seriously challenged by the Ld. Advocate appearing for the O. P. s. The matter was heard at length. ( 7 ) THE point for determination will be whether in the event of a revisional application having been dismissed on merit after hearing the O. P. s. alone due to the absence of anybody on behalf of the petitioner even though the matter was duly published in the cause list, the Court in exercise of its inherent power under Section 482 Cr. P. C. can recall the said order passed on merit and rehear the revisional application. ( 8 ) BEFORE going into the reported decisions cited at the bar it would be pertinent to point out a material discrepancy appearing in the application vide Para-10 and Para 14 of the said application in terms of the averment of Para-10, Shri Asim Kr. Roy, the Ld. Advocate appeared in the matter at the end of hearing when the Court had already delivered the judgement. It has also been averred that he received an information from his Clerk to the effect that the matter was going un-represented and accordingly, he made his appearance. But in Para-14 it is stated that the petitioner's representative who used to keep constant watch by contacting his Advocate about the progress of the matter became suspicious when it did not appear in the cause list from 8-1-96 and due to non-publication of the matter in the cause list even on 15-l-96 he made an enquiry when it was transpired on 19-1-96 that the revisional application has already been dismissed on 5-1-96. Naturally, these two averments cannot be reconciled. Not only that it also reveals that the petitioners were not at all vigilant about contacting his Advocate in the matter of progress of the revisional application. Had it been so, he could at once come to know about the position on 4-1-96 and also on 5-1-96 when the matter was running in the list, being a Specially Fixed one to be heard at 2. P. M. on 5-1-96. Had it been so, he could at once come to know about the position on 4-1-96 and also on 5-1-96 when the matter was running in the list, being a Specially Fixed one to be heard at 2. P. M. on 5-1-96. The fact that his knowledge about the dismissal came only in 19-1-96 shows that he is very much careless about proper attention being given to his case. ( 9 ) LET me now scrutinise the different case Laws which have been cited by the Ld. Advocates representing both the sides. Reliance has been placed on a case reported in 1985 Cr LJ 23 where it has been held that exercise of inherent power can be made by the High Court in order to review or revise its judgement if such judgement is pronounced without giving an opportunity of being heard to a party who is entitled to hearing and that party is not at fault. It has also been averred that due to mistake of the Court, a party cannot suffer. In that case the date of hearing was originally fixed on 13. 2 of a particular year but through inadvertence, it appeared in the cause list of 8th Feb. , where upon the Writ Petition was dismissed. Obviously, this case cannot have any analogy with the case in hand. Reliance has also been placed on a case reported in 1975 Cr LJ 820. The point of law regarding dismissal of an appeal without hearing to party entitled to be heard as laid down therein is not also applicable in the present case. It has been held in that case that when a party is entitled to be heard before an order affecting his interest was passed and such a party is not heard for no fault of his, the High Court in exercise of inherent power had set aside the said order. In the present case the party is certainly at fault. And the circumstance have already been stated earlier. The decision reported in 1991, Calcutta Criminal Law Reporter, 178 has no application in the present case. In the present case the party is certainly at fault. And the circumstance have already been stated earlier. The decision reported in 1991, Calcutta Criminal Law Reporter, 178 has no application in the present case. Reliance has been placed also on another decision reported in 1970 Cr LJ 1547 where it has been held that if a petition is disposed of without hearing one side, it can be reopened and re-heard only when there is an erroneous act of the Court due to which prejudice was caused to the party affected. This cannot have any application in the present matter. The decision reported in 1970 Crlj 1550 is not also applicable in the present case being in a different context. The case reported in 1970 Crlj 378 deals with the application of inherent power of the High Court. In that case interested persons were not made parties in a revisional application and the revisional application was heard in their absence. As such inherent power was exercised by the High Court to re-open the matter and to give chance to the interested parties being made a party to the application and be heard in the matter. The case reported in AIR 1987 Rajasthan 83 makes a distinction between the review and recall of an order and it has been held that in the facts and circumstance of that case recall was not barred under Section 362 Cr. P. C. In the case a revisional application was filed challenging conviction and sentence. It was admitted on October, 1978 and was ordered to be heard in due course on 26-5-79. Subsequently, it came up for hearing on 11-1-85 when the accused petitioner was un-represented and after hearing the P. P. revisional application was dismissed. Subsequently the order of conviction was put into execution and the accused was also apprehended. He served out the remaining part of the sentence but also applied for the matter being heard and in the context of the said circumstances there was a reference to the Division Bench when it was held that such an order could be recalled and accused person should not be condemned un-heard. This in my opinion also does not apply to the present case since the facts are completely different. This in my opinion also does not apply to the present case since the facts are completely different. ( 10 ) ON behalf of the O. P. s. reliance has been placed on the case reported in AIR 1981 SC 736 : (1981 Cri LJ 296) in support of the contention that within the purview of Section 362 only clerical or arithmetical error can be removed. It has been stated that inherent power of the High Court cannot be exercised for doing that which is specifically prohibited by the Court. Reference has also been made to another decision reported in AIR 1981 SC 1385 : (1981 Cri LJ 1044) regarding the scope of Section 362 Cr. P. C. The decision reported in 1981 (2) CHN 471 is exactly to the point. There it has been held that Section 482 Cr. P. C. does not authorise a recalling of an order passed on merit in the absence of one of the parties who could not be heard for some fault of his or his Learned Counsel. It has been held that this being the position, there cannot be any recall of the order the sole purpose of which is to re-hear the revisional application. Reference has also been made to a decision reported in AIR 1979 SC 87 : (1979 Cri LJ 33 ). In support of the contention that once a judgement has been pronounced by High Court either in exercise of its appellate or its revisional jurisdiction, no review or revision can be entertained against that judgement as there is no provision in the Code which would enable the High Court to review the same or to exercise the revisional jurisdiction. ( 11 ) AFTER giving my careful consideration to the submissions of both the sides and in view of the principles of taw as laid down in the decisions discussed earlier I come to the conclusion that here is a case in which there was utter negligence on the part of the petitioner in as much as he was absolutely unmindful to the progress of the case. The omission is of such a nature that it cannot be condoned merely because the Clerk of the Ld. Advocate somehow missed the matter in the list. The omission is of such a nature that it cannot be condoned merely because the Clerk of the Ld. Advocate somehow missed the matter in the list. That explanation does not appear to me to be satisfactory having regard to the fact that the matter appeared in the Combined List on 4-1-96 where it has been shown as a Specially Fixed one to be heard on 5-1-96 at 2 P. M. There cannot he any question of publication of the same in the Supplementary List for 5-1-96 since the very existence of the Supplementary List is to include the matters which were subsequently added following the publication of the Combined List. There is a specific note in the Supplementary List that after the completion of the said list the Combined List is to be followed. A matter is specially fixed for hearing only when both the sides or one of the sides with the consent of the other makes submission for inclusion of the same as a Specially Fixed one due to some urgency or other reason. If such a matter goes un-represented in spite of repeated calls and the matter is heard on merit, it cannot be said that no reasonable opportunity was given to the party making the default for being heard. The anomaly, so far as the factual position is concerned, appearing in the recall application in para-10 and Para 14 cannot be reconciled and the fact that the petitioner came to know about the order only on 19-1-96 even after the averment of making enquiry and following the cause list since 8-1-96 betray lack of interest and diligence on the part of all concerned. Accordingly, it is being not a case in which the party has got no opportunity to be heard, an order cannot be recalled the effect of which would be to hear a revisional application for the second time which cannot be done under the law. It is true, that position would have been otherwise if the fault would be on the part of the Court by way of non-appearance in the cause list or the matter being listed on a wrong date when a recall application should necessarily be allowed as any latches or fault of the Court or its Officers should not be allowed to cause any harm to a party coming for relief before the Court. ( 12 ) IN the result, there is no other alternative but to reject the prayer contained in the recall application. ( 13 ) IT has however, come to my notice that there is a slight clerical mistake being a typo-graphical one in the order dated 5-1-96 which in exercise of inherent power under Section 362 Cr. P. C. should be corrected. In the said order at two places appearance of petitioner No. 1 and petitioner No. 2 has been recorded instead of O. P. No. 1 and O. P. No. 2. This s clear from the earlier sentence to the effect that none appeared for the petitioner on calls and accordingly the Ld. Advocates representing the O. P. No. 1 being the State, and O. P. No. 2 being a private party were heard. Accordingly, in the order dated 5-1-96 in the place "petitioner No. 1" the words "o. P. No. 1" and in the place "petitioner No. 2" the words "o. P. No. 2" shall be substituted. The recall application is accordingly disposed of. Petition dismissed.