Limited recall power after voluntary withdrawal bars restoration where no jurisdictional error or mistake apparent on the record exists.

A tribunal's limited power of recall or restoration does not extend to appeals voluntarily withdrawn without liberty to revive them. Where the withdrawal was recorded on counsel's request and no mistake apparent on the face of the record or dismissal for default was shown, the statutory basis for recall was unavailable. An alleged advocate's mistake, even if accepted, did not justify supervisory interference when the tribunal committed no jurisdictional error. Accordingly, the tribunal was not required to restore the appeals, and interference under Article 227 was not warranted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Appellate Tribunal could recall its order permitting withdrawal of the appeals and restore the appeals on the ground that counsel withdrew them under a mistaken belief, and whether the High Court should interfere under Article 227.

Analysis: The withdrawal order recorded a simple request by counsel to withdraw the appeals and did not reserve liberty to revive them or disclose any error committed by the Tribunal. The provision relied upon for recall was held applicable only where there is a mistake apparent on the face of the record or where the appeal is dismissed for default and sufficient cause is shown for restoration. Since the appeals had been voluntarily withdrawn, the case did not fall within the limited statutory power of recall or restoration. The Court also held that the advocate's mistake, even if accepted, could not justify exercise of supervisory jurisdiction when the Tribunal had committed no jurisdictional error.

Conclusion: The Tribunal was not bound to recall the withdrawal order or restore the appeals, and interference under Article 227 was not warranted.

---