ORDER : (NIKHIL S. KARIEL, J.) 1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Jigar Raval for the applicants, learned advocate Ms. Archana Acharya for the opponent No.1 – original petitioner and learned AGP Mr. J.K. Shah for the opponent - State authorities. 2. By way of this application, the applicants have sought for recall of an order dated 22.01.2025 passed by this Court in Special Civil Application No.421 of 2025, whereby this Court had directed the Deputy Collector, Vadodara City, to decide a representation preferred by the original petitioner dated 19.02.2024. 3. To err is human and this Court has no hesitation in accepting that it had erred in passing order dated 22.01.2025, but when the Court is made to err by placing incomplete facts that erring would amount to misleading the Court and whereas to this Court, it would appear that the present is a classic case where this Court has been unfortunately made to pass an order, which this Court should not and ought not to have passed. Having said that it would require to be stated that the Courts are manned by Judges, who are ultimately human beings and having the weight of dealing with hundreds of matters per day which are listed on Board. In this melee of proceedings, when an application comes up with an innocuous request where a party is seeking direction of this Court to decide a representation preferred by the said party, the Court relying upon the pleadings, the oral submissions and relying upon assistance rendered by other side, sometimes commits the mistake of not going deep into the facts and trying to ascertain whether even such an innocuous prayer should be granted. 4. Having observed as above, on the merits of the application, it requires to be mentioned that the prayers sought for in the main writ petition was only with regard to directing the authorities to decide a representation preferred by the petitioner dated 17.02.2024, more particularly to rectify a mistake committed while making mutation entry No.2162 dated 21.11.1984. The representation as could be figured out from the very prayer, which has been mentioned hereinabove was for correcting an entry No.2162 with regard to the land bearing Survey No.3668 situated at village: Sevasi, Dist. Vadodara. 5. The prayer being so innocuous one might wonder what is the disquiet all about. The representation as could be figured out from the very prayer, which has been mentioned hereinabove was for correcting an entry No.2162 with regard to the land bearing Survey No.3668 situated at village: Sevasi, Dist. Vadodara. 5. The prayer being so innocuous one might wonder what is the disquiet all about. To appreciate the same the first question would be, whether the Revenue Authorities were entitled to correct or modify the entry, the answer is a straight ‘No’. The second question being whether this Court could have granted a prayer to modify entry No.2162, again the answer is a straight ‘No’. The reason being that the very said entry was subject to scrutiny in revenue proceedings and whereas vide an order dated 13.04.2005, the Additional Secretary, Revenue Department in Revision Application No.62 of 2003 had set aside the entry No.2162 and whereas a learned Coordinate Bench (Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.R. Shah, as His Lordship then was) in Special Civil Application No.15105 of 2005 vide order dated 19.09.2005 had set aside the order passed by the Additional Secretary dated 13.04.2005 and had restored the entry No.2162 referred to hereinabove. The learned Coordinate Bench having confirmed the entry No.2162, the only option which was available to the petitioner as per the law, was to have either filed a Review Application or have challenged the order of the learned Coordinate bench before an Appellate Court. There was no application possible for modification of entry no. 2162 since the same would amount to committing a contempt of direction of this Court vide order dated 19.09.2005, whereby the entry No.2162 was upheld. 6. Unfortunately, the above being the position, the petitioner, who unfortunately happens to be an advocate, then came up with the ingenuine device of filing a representation seeking for rectification of entry No.2162 and the Revenue Authorities not having acceded to his request, had approached this Court by way of the main writ petition. 7. In so far as the order of the learned Coordinate Bench is concerned, while it is true that the order dated 19.09.2005 was placed on record, the averments with regard to the said order were to state the least truncated. 7. In so far as the order of the learned Coordinate Bench is concerned, while it is true that the order dated 19.09.2005 was placed on record, the averments with regard to the said order were to state the least truncated. The pleadings with regard to the order dated 19.09.2005, as appearing at paragraph No.3.8 is reproduced hereinbelow: “It came to the notice of the other co-owners only in the year 1990 regarding mutation entry No.2162 dated 21.11.1984 and therefore, in the year 1990, co-owners of the land in question filed RTS Appeal No.29 of 1990 before the Deputy Collector challenging the Mutation Entry No.2162 dated 21.11.1984 recording the name of Jitubhai Balwantbhai Desai. It is pertinent to note that in the Mutation entry No.2162, the name of Jitubhai Balwantbhai Desai is mutated qua the share of Jiviben widow of Parsotambhai Lallubhai only. The said is also observed in the order of the Deputy Collector. However, the Deputy Collector dismissed the said appeal on the ground of limitation vide order dated 09.03.1993 passed in RTS Appeal No.29 of 1990 and ultimately the said order came to be confirmed by this Hon’ble Court order dated 19.09.2005 passed in Special Civil Application No.15105 of 2005, a copy of the order dated 19.09.2005 passed in Special Civil application No.15105 of 2005 is annexed hereto and marked Annexure-”H”. [Emphasis Supplied] A plain reading of the above paragraph reflects as if that the order dated 19.09.2005 was only with regard to an order passed by the Revenue Authorities. Again what would be relevant to note is that there is reference to order passed by the Deputy Collector dated 09.03.1993 and by using the word ‘ultimately’ what is being possibly attempted to be stated is that the said order had been subjected to some revision or appeal and the same came to be confirmed by this Court vide order dated 19.09.2005, without any reference whatsoever to the intervening order passed by the learned SSRD dated 13.04.2005, which had been set aside by the learned Coordinate Bench vide order dated 19.09.2005. 8. Taking the issue further, if the aspect of the matter was limited to this, possibly there could have been a different view taken, but there are two very glaring facts which persuade this Court to note otherwise, the first one being that, as pointed out by learned advocate Mr. 8. Taking the issue further, if the aspect of the matter was limited to this, possibly there could have been a different view taken, but there are two very glaring facts which persuade this Court to note otherwise, the first one being that, as pointed out by learned advocate Mr. Raval for the applicants, the father of the petitioner – Rameshbhai Parshottambhai Patel was a party to the above numbered writ petition i.e. Special Civil Application No.15105 of 2005. The said part is not reflected anywhere in the present writ petition. Secondly, most importantly the order dated 19.05.2005 does not stop at setting aside the order dated 13.04.2005 passed by the learned SSRD. The said order travels further and number of directions have been issued and whereas since the same are relevant for the present purpose, they are reproduced hereinbelow for benefit: “[i] The judgment and order passed by the Additional Secretary dated 13.4.2005 passed in Revision Application No.62 of 2003 is quashed and set aside and the Entry No.2162 in respect of the land bearing Survey No.658 situated at village Sevasi of Taluka -Vadodara is hereby restored. However, the Revenue Authority is directed to make an additional entry in the revenue record that the said entry is subject to the ultimate outcome of the Regular Civil Suit No.1814 of 1995 pending in the court of learned Civil Judge (SD), Vadodara. The parties to abide by the ultimate outcome of Regular Civil Suit No.1814 of 1995 and necessary entry can be modified on the basis of the judgment and decree that may be passed by the learned Civil Judge (SD), Vadodara in Regular Civil Suit No.1814 of 1995. [ii] As agreed by the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the parties, the parties to the present proceeding are directed to maintain status quo till the decision in Regular Civil Suit No.1814 of 1995 pending in the court of learned Civil Judge (SD), Vadodara. [ii] As agreed by the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the parties, the parties to the present proceeding are directed to maintain status quo till the decision in Regular Civil Suit No.1814 of 1995 pending in the court of learned Civil Judge (SD), Vadodara. [iii] The learned Civil Judge (SD), Vadodara and /or the trial court before whom the aforesaid suit is pending, is directed to decide and dispose of the aforesaid R.C.S. No.1814 of 1995 as early as possible and preferably within six months from the date of receipt of this order.” A plain reading of the above directions reveal that in addition to setting aside the order dated 13.04.2005 and confirming the entry No.2162, the learned Coordinate Bench had directed the Revenue Authorities to make an additional entry in the revenue record, inter alia stating that the entry No.2162 would be subject to final outcome of the Regular Civil Suit being Regular Civil Suit no.1814 of 1995 pending in the Court of Learned Civil Judge (SD), Vadodara. The learned Coordinate Bench has also observed that the parties would abide by the ultimate outcome of the above referred Civil Suit. The learned Coordinate Bench has also directed the parties to maintain status-quo and whereas direction No.9.2 reproduced hereinabove reveals that the said portion of the order was by consensus of the parties including by the father of the original petitioner. The said direction being that the parties would maintain status-quo till Regular Civil Suit referred to hereinabove was decided. The latter part of the direction being with regard to decide the Civil Suit within a specific period of time does not appear to have complied with. Be that as it may, this Court is not concerned with the later part, what is important to note is that the order of this Court was not restricted only to setting aside the orders passed by the Revenue Authorities, rather this Court had while confirming the entry No.2162 had also directed that the same would be the subject matter of the Civil Suit, which is still stated to be pending. 9. At this stage, it would be relevant to mention that the pleading at paragraph No.3.8 of the writ petition reproduced hereinbefore, does not reflect in any manner whatsoever as regards the later directions issued by the learned Coordinate Bench of this Court in order dated 19.09.2005. 10. 9. At this stage, it would be relevant to mention that the pleading at paragraph No.3.8 of the writ petition reproduced hereinbefore, does not reflect in any manner whatsoever as regards the later directions issued by the learned Coordinate Bench of this Court in order dated 19.09.2005. 10. Furthermore, a perusal of the representation preferred by the original petitioner before the Deputy Collector would also reveal that the representation, does not in any manner refer to the order of this Court dated 19.09.2005 in Special Civil Application No.15105 of 2005. The representation is as innocuous as anything can be calling upon the Deputy Collector to modify / rectify an entry. 11. It would thus very clearly appear that while the entry No.2162 could not have been modified on the merits of the entry even by this Court sitting as Single Bench, whereas certainly it was not at all open for the revenue authorities to have examined the said entry much less have modified the same. Considered from a converse angle, if the representation of the petitioner dated 17.02.2024 had been considered by the revenue authorities without any intervention of this Court, then legally the authority concerned could be hauled up for committing contempt of the order of this Court dated 19.09.2005 It would, thus appear that what the original petitioners could not have achieved directly was sought to be done indirectly by coming before this Court with an innocuous prayer for deciding a representation. 12. Furthermore, the fact of entry No.2162 being subject to final outcome of a Civil Suit and the father of the petitioner consenting to maintaining of status-quo in the earlier proceedings before this Court were relevant aspects which should have been brought to the notice of this Court. Merely by placing the order on record without any supporting or relevant averments is neither here nor there. 13. This Court, therefore, does not have any hesitation in observing that in passing of order dated 22.01.2025, of which recall has been sought for, this Court had been taken for a ride. Neither the petition nor the representation contain the most relevant facts. 13. This Court, therefore, does not have any hesitation in observing that in passing of order dated 22.01.2025, of which recall has been sought for, this Court had been taken for a ride. Neither the petition nor the representation contain the most relevant facts. The relevant fact of a learned Coordinate Bench having directed that the entry in question would be governed by the final outcome of the Civil Suit and the parties including father of the petitioners having agreed to maintain status-quo, till the Civil Suit is finally decided are glaringly absent in the pleadings of the writ petition as well as in the representation. 14. At this stage, it is required to be observed that while deciding any petition this Court would normally appreciate the pleadings in the writ petition as well as the relevant annexures and also the oral submissions made by the the learned advocate for the parties. To expect a Court to look at each and every page, which is annexed with the writ petition before deciding the writ petition, more particularly where such an innocuous prayer is sought for, would result in the Court investing much more than expected time in such petitions, which would lead to choking up of an already overburdened system, ultimately leading to collapse of the justice delivery system. Courts are required to take pleadings, oral as well as written pleadings, on face value and whereas it is expected of the learned advocate appearing before any Court including the High Court, to present pleadings in a responsible manner with the sense of being an officer of the Court, not to be mere mouthpieces of their clients. It is also expected of the parties, more particularly as in the present case, the petitioner himself being an Advocate to make sure that all relevant facts are placed before the Court. Unfortunately, as it appears in this matter, the petitioner has utterly failed in his duties, rather the petition and innocuous prayer and the representation were designed in the such a manner to mislead the Court in doing something, which in normal course this Court would refrain from doing. More particularly, the refrain being a legal refrain since all the aspects with regard to an entry No.2162 stood covered by the decision of the learned Coordinate Bench dated 19.09.2005 as hereinabove. 15. More particularly, the refrain being a legal refrain since all the aspects with regard to an entry No.2162 stood covered by the decision of the learned Coordinate Bench dated 19.09.2005 as hereinabove. 15. To this Court, it would appear that once the aspect of the said entry having been confirmed in earlier writ petition and the learned Coordinate Bench directing that the entry would be subject to final outcome of the Civil Suit, which is still stated to be pending were relevant facts which ought to have been brought to the notice of this Court in pleadings of the present petition, and whereas unfortunately this Court having relied upon the pleadings and having relied upon oral submissions was persuaded to pass the above order. Since it clealry appears to this Court that this Court itself has committed error, therefore, this Court tenders its unconditional regret to the applicants of the Misc. Civil Application for the same. 16. Having regard to the above, more particularly since it clearly appears that this Court had been misled into passing of the above order, while recalling the order dated 22.01.2025, this Court deems it appropriate to impose cost quantified at Rs. Five Lakhs upon the original petitioner. The cost to be deposited with the High Court Legal Services Committee within a period four weeks from today, failing which the High Court Legal Services Committee is at liberty to take out appropriate steps for recovery thereof. 17. With the above direction, the present Misc. Civil Application stands disposed of as allowed.