Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 543 (KAR)

Chandramma v. M. Narasimhaiah

2008-09-23

B.S.PATIL

body2008
ORDER B.S. Patil, J.— The order dated 28.3.2008 passed by the Court below setting aside its own order dated 16.1.2008 and posting the matter for consideration of the application filed by the applicant Smt. Chandramma to come on record in the proceedings pending before the Court below is challenged in this writ petition. 2. The main contention of the petitioner is that on 16.1.2008 application filed seeking to come on record as a claimant in the proceeding pending before the Court below in LAC. No. 328/2000 was allowed and thereafter by the impugned order, the said order has been recalled and the matter is again posted for being heard on the application. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the Court has no such jurisdiction to recall its earlier order and post the matter for hearing on the I.A which was already disposed of. 3. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and on perusal of the materials on record, I find that the Court had committed a mistake on 16.1.2008 in not noticing the objections filed to the application by the claimant/respondent No. 4 herein. The Court also came to know that it was the Counsel for the Bangalore Development Authority, who had submitted no objection for allowing the application and not the claimant. Under such circumstances, in the ends of justice and in order to correct the mistake committed, the impugned order has been passed on 28.3.2008 to recall the earlier order and post the matter for consideration so as to afford reasonable and fair opportunity to both the parties. Even though Counsel for the petitioner is right is contending that technically, the Court could not recall its own order, I don't find any illegality or injustice done to the parties, much less to the interest of the claimant, as what is sought to be done is to only correct the mistake that had crept in. It is not in dispute that the claimant had not stated his no objection for allowing the application. It is also not in dispute that the claimant had in fact filed his objections to the application and it was the Court which made a mistake in recording that the claimant had no objection to allow the application. In such circumstances, the order passed on 28.3.2008 cannot be characterized as illegal. It is also not in dispute that the claimant had in fact filed his objections to the application and it was the Court which made a mistake in recording that the claimant had no objection to allow the application. In such circumstances, the order passed on 28.3.2008 cannot be characterized as illegal. Hence, the petition is dismissed, making it clear that the Court below shall afford fair and reasonable opportunity to both the parties and thereafter pass appropriate orders afresh on the application filed or impleading.