- (1.) BARKAT Ali Zaidi, J. An order was passed by this Court on 2- 2-2006 in a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution filed by Abhishek Singh Kushwaha and Smt. Shakshi Kushwaha which is Annexure-1. An application by the opposite party No. 2, Jugal Kishor Singh, father of the applicant No. 2, Smt. Shakshi Kushwaha was given for recalling the order, which is Annexure-2. A subsequent application has now been made by the mother, Smt. Aparna Kshwaha, of applicant No. 2 for the same purpose of recalling the order.
(2.) WE have heard Shri K. Ajit, advocate, Counsel for the applicant mother and Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State. It must be mentioned at the outset that after the Court has passed a full and final order disposing off the matter before it, the Court is not supposed to recall the order unless some mathematical or clerical error has crept into it, or there is incongruity, so outrageous which scuttles justice. If any party feels aggrieved, it can go in appeal, but asking the Court to re- consider the matter on various other grounds, is not the right course and tends to undermine the dignity of the Court, because, the Court has already passed the final order. The Court should, therefore, normally decline to accept such recall applications. It will not be in keeping with the dignity of the Court to pass an order today, and to recall it tomorrow, on one ground, or the other. One aspect which needs to be mentioned is that an application filed by the father for recall had already been rejected on 5-5- 2006 and subsequent thereto another application has been given by the mother for the same purpose. The mother and father cannot be allowed to take turn for filing applications before the Court with the same request and since an application by the father had already been rejected earlier, another application by the mother should be deemed unmaintainable.
(3.) ALLEGATIONS have been made that the age of the girl has been wrongly indicated before the Court and fraud has been practised. It has been further alleged that the marriage is void, not being in accordance with the provisions of Special Marriage Act. If fraud has been practised, the proper remedy lies in filing a suit on the basis of fraud, similarly, if the marriage is illegal a declaratory suit is the proper remedy. This Court has passed an order and there is no such unusual or extraordinary reason why it should be revised or reviewed.;