N.K.KAPOOR, J. - (1.) THE present application has been filed to recall the order dated 4. 4. 1991 on the ground that the petitioner's counsel Sh. B. L. Bishnoi had shifted to Delhi to practice in the Supreme Court and thus no assistance was rendered for and on behalf of the petitioner. Even the petitioner also had no knowledge of the date when the case was to be heard. It has further been stated that the petitioner met his counsel in the High Court where he had gone along with his relation and when enquired from his counsel was told that he did not know of the hearing since he has shifted. On subsequent enquiry, it was found that the petition was dismissed on 4. 4. 1991. In addition thereto, it has been stated that the case had not been clearly and correctly shown in the cause list. Even the name of the counsel was not clearly mentioned.
(2.) RESPONDENTS put in appearance, filed reply by way of affidavit of Sh. S. D. Bhanot. Besides taking some preliminary objections as to the maintainability of the petition, limitation etc, factual averments made by the petitioner have also not been admitted as correct. Precisely put, it has been urged that, in fact, there were two petitioners, namely, Smt. Satya Devi and Sh. V. P. Sardana and thus the death of Smt. Satya Devi will not absolve Sh. V. P. Sardana, the other petitioner, of his careless attitude. Even otherwise, civil revision was decided on 4. 4. 1991. Smt. Satya Devi died on 28. 4. 1991. As regards maintainability, it has been stated that the revision petition was heard and decided on merits and thus there is no need to recall the earlier order. The matter has remained pending fairly for a long time, sometime on account of non-availability of the counsel and sometimes on account of paucity of time of the Court. The matter though short, yet is being seriously contested. The case of the petitioner is that he had no knowledge of the pendency of the revision petition nor his counsel at any given time intimated him in this regard. He had all the time been thinking that as and when his case is fixed for final hearing, the counsel would inform him in this regard which, of course, has not happened in the present case. Not only this, even the counsel had no knowledge for the obvious reason as he had already shifted to Supreme Court at Delhi. In these circumstances, the counsel has urged that the petitioner has been deprived of a right of hearing which is essential for just decision of the case.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the respondents has, however, contested the various submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner. It has been argued that there is no explanation on record as to why Sh. V. P. Sardana, co-petitioner of Smt. Satya Devi, did not keep track of the revision petition which was ordered to be heard at an early date at his instance. In addition thereto, there is no clear averment in the application as to when Sh. B. L. Bishnoi shifted to Supreme Court. No affidavit of Sh. B. L. Bishnoi had been placed on record. Even if it be taken that Sh. B. L. Bishnoi had already shifted, the petitioner, in fact, had two other counsel, namely, Sh. Surinder Bishnoi and Sh. P. C. Chaudhary, Advocates. This way any of these two counsel ought to have taken care of the pending revision petition. Lastly, it was urged that the petition was heard and decided on merit and thus no case is made out for reviewer the earlier order. Accordingly, it was prayed that the present petition merits dismissal being devoid of any merit.;