Debi Prosad Dey, J. - (1.) This application for recalling the order dated 4th August 2017 passed by this Court in connection with CRR No. 2815 of 2016 has been filed on the ground that no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner at the time of disposal of the aforesaid CRR application.
(2.) Learned Advocate Mr. Moitra appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the order passed by this Court in CRR No. 2815 of 2016 can safely be recalled though it was disposed of on merit in terms of the decisions Sri Mrityunjoy Prodhan & Ors, 2011 2 CalCriLR 747 and a Full Bench decision of the Allahabad High Court Raj Narain & Ors. V. State., 1959 AIR(All) 315 Mr. Moitra thereafter argued on the merit of the criminal revisional Application which has already been disposed of by this Court and in course of his argument learned Advocate has relied on the following Decisions: (i) Vijay Dhanuka & Ors. V. Najima Mamtaj & Ors, 2014 14 SCC 638. (ii) Bridgstone India Pvt. Ltd. V. Inderpal Singh, 2016 1 AICLR 1 (S.C.) (iii) K.S. Joseph v. Philips Carbon Black Ltd. & Anr, 2016 4 JT 119
(3.) It may be mentioned here that despite service of notice none appears on behalf of the opposite parties. It is apparent from the order passed by this Court in CRR 2815 of 2016 that the argument of the petitioner was conducted by Mr. Moitra and that argument continued for about 3 days and thereafter the judgment was delivered by this Court in a contested application. At the outset I will have to deal with the prayer of maintainability in respect of recalling an order which has been disposed of after contest by the single bench. Thereafter if the said recalling of order is permissible under the law, then and then only the matter may be looked into on merit.;