JUDGMENT : Deepa Sharma, J.:-- Ex.App. No. 421/2015 in EX.P. 16/2008 1. In Execution Petition No. 16/2008, an application No. 817/2014 was moved by the Judgment Debtor No. 2 to recall the orders dated 05.08.2014, passed by this Court. This application was assigned to this Court for disposal. It is also pertinent to mention here that the applicant had filed a EFA(OS) No. 22/2014 before the Division Bench, challenging the order of this Court dated 05.08.2014, which was, however, dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to make an appropriate application before the learned Single Judge, including all the grounds on which that appeal was filed. 2. A reply was filed by the non-applicant/petitioner to the application No. 817/2014. Thereafter, during the course of arguments on 12.03.2015, Mr. Harish Malhotra, Senior Advocate, appearing for the applicant, made a submission to file an additional affidavit clarifying certain expressions used in the application No. 817/2014. Subsequent to that, an application bearing EA No. 266/2015 under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 was moved by the applicant. The said application was allowed by this Court vide order dated 10.04.2015. Thereafter, the amended application which was numbered as EA No. 399/2015 was filed by the applicant. It was brought to the notice of this Court that this application was not as per the amendment sought by the applicant vide his application bearing EA No. 266/2015. Thereafter, the applicant withdrew his amended application which was registered as EA No. 399/2015 and filed another amended application which was registered as EA No. 421/2015 in terms of the amendment sought vide its application bearing EA No. 266/2015. This EA No. 421/2015 is a substitution by way of amendment to the application bearing EA No. 817/2014 which was assigned to this Court for disposal. 3. Arguments had been heard on this application of learned counsel for both the parties. 4. Vide this application, the applicant, i.e., Judgment Debtor No. 2 has sought the recall of the order of this Court dated 05.08.2014 passed in Execution Petition No. 16/2008 on various grounds. 3. Arguments had been heard on this application of learned counsel for both the parties. 4. Vide this application, the applicant, i.e., Judgment Debtor No. 2 has sought the recall of the order of this Court dated 05.08.2014 passed in Execution Petition No. 16/2008 on various grounds. From the perusal of the order dated 05.08.2014, it is apparent that only direction issued by this Court vide this order in relation to Judgment Debtor No. 2 is of the following nature:- “JD No. 2 is restrained from leaving the country without the permission of this Court and is also directed to be present in person on the next date of hearing.” 5. The order dated 05.08.2014 clearly shows that the ordersheet of this date, besides the above-mentioned order, contains the submissions and counter-submissions made by the Judgment Debtor as well as his counsel and that of the petitioner. 6. The following principle governing the recall of the order has been clearly held by the Supreme Court in the case of Budhia Swain v. Gopinath Deb (1999) 4 SCC 396 :- “In our opinion a tribunal or a court may recall an order earlier made by it if (i) the proceedings culminating into an order suffer from the inherent lack of jurisdiction and such lack of jurisdiction is patent, (ii) there exists fraud or collusion in obtaining the judgment, (iii) there has been a mistake of the court prejudicing a party or (iv) a judgment was rendered in ignorance of the fact that a necessary party had not been served at all or had died and the estate was not represented. The power to recall a judgment will not be exercised when the ground for re-opening the proceedings or vacating the judgment was available to be pleaded in the original action but was not done or where a proper remedy in some other proceeding such as by way of appeal or revision was available but was not availed. The right to seek vacation of a judgment may be lost by waiver, estoppel or acquiescence.” 7. As per this principle, Judgment Debtor No. 2 is required to show to the Court that direction of the Court, by which he was restrained from leaving this Court, without permission of the Court, has been passed without jurisdiction or in ignorance of the law or the fact. As per this principle, Judgment Debtor No. 2 is required to show to the Court that direction of the Court, by which he was restrained from leaving this Court, without permission of the Court, has been passed without jurisdiction or in ignorance of the law or the fact. The Judgment Debtor No. 2 has failed to show to this Court that such a direction is violative of his fundamental rights or to any express provision of law. It is apparent from the order that the Court has not put an absolute ban on his travelling abroad, but has only conditioned it by directing the Judgment Debtor No. 2 to seek permission of this Court before leaving the country. It therefore is clear that the applicant has failed to point out any error in the said order. He has also failed to show that the order was passed by this Court without jurisdiction or ignorance of law. Therefore, this part of the order does not deserve any recall. 8. The rest of the prayer made by the Judgment Debtor No. 2 in this application for recall of the order shows that he wants to recall the undertaking given by him on 05.08.2014, trying to impress upon the Court that the said undertaking was given by him under a particular state of mind. It is apparent that a Court can only recall its order, pursuant to the guidelines given by the Supreme Court in Budhia Swain (supra) and also under the provisions of Order 47 Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Code. A party is not permitted to recall or withdraw his statements made before the Court in the garb of an application, asking the Court to recall its order or to review its order. 9. The contention of the petitioner that the Court had allowed the Decree Holder to invoke the provisions of Order 21 Rule 30 for execution of money decree by detention of the appellant/Judgment Debtor in civil prison is misconceived since the order dated 05.08.2014 does not show that the Court had issued any such directions. This Court had simply recorded the submissions of the petitioner made by him for exercising his rights under Order 21 Rule 30 of CPC. 10. For these reasons, the application has no merit and the same is dismissed. This Court had simply recorded the submissions of the petitioner made by him for exercising his rights under Order 21 Rule 30 of CPC. 10. For these reasons, the application has no merit and the same is dismissed. EX.P. 16/2008 The matter along with the pending applications be listed before the Roster Bench on 20.05.2015.