Recall or modification applications used to reopen final orders deemed disguised review attempts, dismissed with costs, warned against repeats.

An application seeking recall/clarification of a final SC order was held impermissible where, in substance, it sought review while bypassing the prescribed review procedure. Relying on prior SC authority, the Court reiterated that parties cannot circumvent circulation and obtain an open-court rehearing through "recall" or "modification" applications; such filings warrant dismissal with costs. A further recall application against an order dismissing an earlier recall was held not maintainable, the only remedy being a review petition as earlier indicated by the Court. The impugned recall application was therefore treated as an abuse of process, justifying refusal to entertain it and warning that repetitive non-maintainable filings may invite directions restraining further registry acceptance.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

(i) Whether an application seeking recall of a final order, particularly an order dismissing an earlier recall application and directing the applicant to pursue review, is maintainable; and whether the Registry was justified in refusing to register such recall application.

(ii) Whether the recall application could be sustained on the asserted grounds of lack of jurisdiction or violation of principles of natural justice.

(iii) Whether repeated, non-maintainable recall applications constitute abuse of process warranting exemplary costs and a warning of deterrent measures.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue (i): Maintainability of recall of the order dismissing recall and directing review; propriety of lodging by the Registry

Legal framework (as discussed): The Court treated the filing of recall/clarification/modification applications against final orders as an impermissible device to bypass the prescribed review procedure and undermine finality of judgments. The Court emphasised the institutional importance of finality and disapproved reopening concluded decisions through repeated interlocutory applications.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Court focused on the nature of the impugned attempt: the applicant sought recall of an order which itself had rejected recall and indicated that the proper remedy was review. The Court held that such a "recall of the recall-rejection order" is not maintainable, because it effectively seeks to reopen a concluded final order through an impermissible procedural route. The Court agreed with the Registry's action in lodging/refusing registration of the recall application, since the application did not deserve registration in view of settled practice against entertaining such filings when they are, in substance, a disguised review.

Conclusion: The recall application targeting the order dismissing recall was held not maintainable, and the Registry's refusal to register it was upheld.

Issue (ii): Whether lack of jurisdiction or violation of natural justice justified recall

Legal framework (as discussed): The Court accepted, as a general proposition urged by the applicant, that an exceptional recall may be argued where an order is without jurisdiction or where principles of natural justice are violated; however, it assessed whether those exceptional conditions existed on the facts of the order sought to be recalled.

Interpretation and reasoning: On lack of jurisdiction, the Court held that it could not be said "by any stretch of imagination" that the impugned order suffered from want of jurisdiction. On natural justice, the Court examined the impugned order and found that the applicant (and others) had been heard before the applications were dismissed; hence, there was no violation of natural justice to trigger any recall jurisdiction. The Court also stated that, since it was concerned only with the recall of the later order, it was unnecessary to examine the broader submission that an earlier judgment stood impliedly overruled.

Conclusion: Neither lack of jurisdiction nor breach of natural justice was established; therefore, recall was unjustified and the only indicated remedy remained review.

Issue (iii): Abuse of process; exemplary costs and warning of deterrent action

Legal framework (as discussed): The Court reiterated that finality of judgments is essential in a rule-of-law system and that repeated reopening through non-maintainable applications constitutes abuse of process with adverse impact on the administration of justice. It noted that persistent abuse can attract stringent responses, including exemplary costs, possible criminal contempt consequences in appropriate cases, and even directions restricting the Registry from receiving further applications in the same litigation.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Court characterised the recall application (seeking recall of an order that had already refused recall and pointed to review) as a repetitive and non-maintainable filing, and therefore an abuse of process. Given the repetitive nature and the attempted circumvention of the review route, the Court found it necessary to impose exemplary costs and to issue a clear caution against further such filings.

Conclusion: The appeal was dismissed as an abuse of process with exemplary costs of Rs. 25,000, and the applicant was warned that continued repetitive, non-maintainable applications could invite deterrent measures, including initiation of criminal contempt proceedings or directions to the Registry not to accept further applications in that litigation.

---