JUDGMENT Hon’ble Rakesh Tiwari, J.—This case was listed on an application No. 229309 of 2006 moved by Sri B.N. Agarwal and Sanjay Agarwal, Advocates, counsel for the petitioners after service on one Sri R.P. Tiwari, Advocate, inter alia. On 20.5.2003 the case had been admitted and notices were issued to respondent tenants’. They had taken steps in time and notices which had been served on the respondents but counter affidavit has not been filed so far. 2. An order dated 10.11.2006 was passed enhancing the rent of the accommodation in dispute. 3. Thereafter an application No. 265974 of 2006 for recalling the order dated 10.11.2006 and hearing the matter on merits was moved. 4. In paragraph 2 of the application it has been averred that due to inadvertant bona fide mistake the case could not be marked by the clerk of Sri N.K. Saxena and Sri Deepak Saxena, counsel for the respondents hence they could not instruct the learned Senior Advocate, Sri V.K.S. Chaudhary, whose name was also printed in the cause list dated 10.11.2006 along with their names for the respondents. 5. It is urged by Sri V.K.S. Chaudhary, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri N.K. Saxena and Sri Deepak Saxena that the counsels for the respondents had no notice of the case as the application No. 229309 of 2006 for listing of the case was served on one Sri R.P. Tiwari who is not a counsel for the respondents. In paragraph 6 of the affidavit filed along with the recall application No. 265974/06, it is averred that on 10.11.2006 one Sri P.K. Singh, Advocate, informed him by the deponent of the affidavit i.e. Clerk, to Sri N.K. Saxena, during the lunch recess that some order has been passed in one of the case of Sri Deepak Saxena, Advocate which was listed in Court No. 7 and has gone un-attended. It is also averred that on checking the cause list dated 10.11.2006 he found that the aforesaid writ petition was listed on serial No. 2 but was not marked by him as such he immediately made enquiries from the reader regarding the orders passed in the case and came to know that rents has been enhanced by the order dated 10.11.2006. 6. 6. It is further averred that deponent of the affidavit, the clerk, immediately also informed Sri Deepak Saxena, Advocate about the orders of enhancement of rent by the Court dated 10.11.2006. 7. Sri V.K.S. Chaudhary, learned Senior Advocate on the basis of averments made in paragraph 2 to 6 of the aforesaid affidavit has urged that the counsels for the petitioner has played fraud by serving the copy to some other counsel and has obtained the orders behind his back of which they could have no knowledge when it was passed on 10.11.2006 and prayed that it may be recalled as there was also no prayer for enhancement of the rent in the application which was moved only with prayer for listing of the case. 8. The contention of the counsel for the respondents Sri V.K.S. Chaudhary, that counsel for the petitioner had obtained the order behind his back in a fraudulent manner is misconceived as admittedly the name of not only Sri V.K.S. Chaudhary, learned Senior Advocate, but the name of Sri N.K. Saxena and Deepak Saxena, were also printed in the cause list dated 10.11.2006 when the case was taken up in the revised list on that date none of them attended the case on that date hence the order enhancing of the rent was passed. Had they been present they could have very well pointed out to the Court that the Copy of the application No. 229309 of 2006 had not been served on them but by mistake served on one Sri R.P. Tiwari, Advocate. They could also have taken plea had there been present in the court that the prayer in the application was only for listing and no specific prayer for enhancement of the rent had been made in the said application. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent per contra has urged that from perusal of paragraph 6 it is apparent that the clerk of Sri N.K. Saxena, was informed to Sri N.K. Saxena, Advocate, before lunch hours that some order has been passed in the case in Court No.7 in which they had not appeared and that the same was verified by the clerk from the reader of the Court. He submits that according to the averments made in para 6 of the affidavit and the clerk had also informed Sri Deepak Saxena during the recess period, it appears that Sri Deepak Saxena, Advocate, did not take any pain to inform the Court as a matter of courtesy that they could not appear in the case as it was not marked and order has been passed, in these circumstances. Even an application could have been filed in this regard but on the contrary it is urged that order has been obtained by the counsels for the petitioner fraudulently. Merely because by mistake the application for listing was served on some other counsel. It cannot be said in the aforesaid circumstances that the order was obtained by fraud. 10. The mistake by both the parties is apparent on record. 11. In AIR (37) 1950 Federal Court 131, the Full Bench of this Court has held : “Where there is an error apparent on the face of the record whether the error occurred by reason of the counsel’s mistake or it crept in by reason of an oversight on the part of the Court, is not a circumstance which can affect the exercise of jurisdiction of the Court to review its decision.” 12. It is, therefore, in the interest of justice that the order dated 10.11.2006 is recalled. 13. This application for recall is, accordingly, disposed of. ———