Recall of delay-condonation refusal rejected where service of notice was proved and no sufficient cause was shown.

A recall application seeking reopening of an order rejecting condonation of delay was not maintainable because no credible sufficient cause was shown. The record established service of notice on the appellant and counsel, and the claim that listing notice had not been served was contradicted by the track consignment report. In the absence of material showing that the official record was or that any valid reason existed to revisit the earlier order, the application was rejected, leaving the refusal to condone delay undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the application for recalling the order rejecting condonation of delay was liable to be allowed.

Analysis: The application did not disclose any good reason for recall. The record showed that notice had been served on the appellant as well as counsel, and the assertion that notice of listing had not been served was found to be incorrect in view of the track consignment report. No material was placed to show that the official record was wrong or that any sufficient cause existed to reopen the earlier order.

Conclusion: The application for recall was not maintainable on the facts shown and was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The earlier refusal to condone delay remained undisturbed, and the proceedings brought for recall came to an end against the appellant.

Ratio Decidendi: A recall application to reopen an order rejecting delay condonation cannot be entertained in the absence of a credible explanation showing sufficient cause, especially where service of notice is established by the record.

---