Appeal for Recall of Final Order Rejected by Bench | Limitation Period Dispute | Order Final

The application for recall of the final order dated 20 July, 2018, was rejected by the Bench. The appellant's argument that the appeal was filed within the prescribed period of limitation based on the date of receiving the adjudication order copy was not accepted. The Bench found no merit in reconsidering the rejection of the appeal, emphasizing that the application aimed at recalling the order itself rather than rectifying a mistake. Therefore, the Bench dismissed the application for recall, concluding the matter with this decision.

---

---

Issues: Application for recall of final order dated 20 July, 2018.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to an application for the recall of a final order dated 20 July, 2018 passed in an appeal. The appeal was rejected earlier for the reason that the Bench did not find merit in the argument presented by the appellant's counsel. The contention of the appellant was that the appeal was filed within the prescribed period of limitation, considering the date the adjudication order was provided to the appellant. However, the Bench did not agree with this submission, leading to the rejection of the appeal.

The appellant argued that the adjudication order was issued on 30 January, 2012, but the appellant only received a copy on 17 May, 2013. Subsequently, the appeal was filed on 16 July, 2013, within two months from the date the order copy was received. The appellant believed this timeline should be considered within the period of limitation. Despite this argument, the Bench did not find it compelling enough to reconsider the earlier decision to reject the appeal.

The judgment highlights that the application for recall of the order was not based on rectifying a mistake but aimed at recalling the order itself. The Bench, after considering the arguments presented and the reasons stated in the original order, found no valid grounds to entertain the application for recall. Consequently, the application for recall was rejected by the Bench, concluding the matter with this decision.

---