Court dismisses motion to recall order, warns against repetitive applications, emphasizes criteria for review not met.

The Court dismissed the Notice of Motion seeking to recall an order dated 19th August, 2016, emphasizing that even if the order was recalled, previous dismissals of the appeal would stand, rendering the application futile. The Court questioned the maintainability of the motion as it did not address previous orders and found the criteria for a review were not met. It noted the applicant's failure to address office objections led to appeal rejection and warned against repetitive applications, cautioning about potential cost imposition in the future.

---

---

Issues:
1. Recall of order dated 19th August, 2016 passed by the Court
2. Maintainability of the present Notice of Motion
3. Review application criteria not satisfied
4. Failure to remove office objections leading to appeal rejection
5. Observations from the Supreme Court regarding delay condonation
6. Imposition of costs due to repetitive applications by Revenue

Analysis:
1. The applicant sought to recall the order dated 19th August, 2016, which was passed in response to a previous application by the Revenue for condonation of delay and setting aside an earlier order. However, the Court noted that even if the recall of the order dated 19th August, 2016 was granted, the previous orders dismissing the appeal would remain unaffected, rendering the current application an academic exercise.

2. The Court highlighted that the present Notice of Motion did not include a prayer to recall the earlier order dated 22nd April, 2016, or to set aside the order of 19th November, 2015. The Court questioned the maintainability of the application, as the previous orders were speaking orders dismissing the Notice of Motion after hearing parties, making it unclear why the current application was filed.

3. Despite treating the application as a Review Application, the Court found that the criteria for a review of the order dated 19th August, 2016 were not met. The applicant did not present new evidence or demonstrate any apparent mistake on record justifying a review. The application solely aimed to argue on facts that could have been raised earlier, leading to its dismissal.

4. The genesis of the present Notice of Motion stemmed from the applicant's failure to remove office objections, resulting in the rejection of the appeal by the Prothonotary and Senior Master. The Court noted that citing administrative difficulties, such as staff shortages, as reasons for not addressing office objections was insufficient justification for filing a defective appeal.

5. The Court referenced a Supreme Court case emphasizing that government bodies must provide reasonable explanations for delays and cannot expect condonation mechanically. The Court reiterated that the law of limitation applies to all, including government departments, and condonation of delay should not be misused as a benefit.

6. Due to the repetitive nature of the applications filed by the Revenue, the Court considered imposing costs. While costs were not imposed in this instance, the Revenue was cautioned against filing repeated applications for the recall of speaking orders passed after hearing parties, highlighting the potential imposition of costs in the future due to the loss of judicial time.

In conclusion, the Court dismissed the Notice of Motion with no order as to costs, emphasizing the need for parties to adhere to procedural requirements and provide valid justifications for their applications to avoid unnecessary delays and misuse of the legal process.

---