Recall of speaking order refused where no new evidence or apparent error was shown and repeated reopening was disapproved.

A notice of motion seeking recall of an earlier speaking order was not maintainable where the applicant had not challenged the foundational orders that had already led to rejection of the appeal for non-removal of office objections. Treating the request as one for review, the HC held that no new evidence or mistake apparent on the record was shown, and the explanation offered merely repeated earlier administrative difficulties. Repetitive attempts to reopen a speaking order without sufficient cause were disapproved. The application was rejected and the finality of the earlier dismissal was affirmed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the notice of motion seeking recall of the earlier speaking order was maintainable and made out grounds warranting review or recall.

Analysis: The application sought recall of a prior speaking order without challenging the earlier foundational orders that had already resulted in rejection of the appeal for non-removal of office objections. The Court treated the request as akin to a review and found that no new evidence had been shown and no mistake apparent on the record had been demonstrated. The explanation offered merely repeated earlier administrative difficulties and did not furnish sufficient cause for reopening the matter. Repetitive applications seeking recall of speaking orders passed after hearing were also disapproved.

Conclusion: The application was not maintainable as a review or recall request and was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The Court declined to reopen its earlier speaking order and affirmed the finality of the dismissal of the revenue's motion.

Ratio Decidendi: A recall or review of a speaking order cannot be granted in the absence of new evidence or an error apparent on the face of the record, and repeated applications seeking the same relief without sufficient cause are liable to be dismissed.

---