https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=307400 Order 41 Rule 21 CPC permits recall and rehearing of an appeal only where the respondent was not duly served or was prevented by sufficient cause from appearing and the appeal was heard ex parte. Here, notice had been duly served, respondents were represented by counsel, and the motor accident appeal was heard in full, so those conditions were absent. A plea of a widow having entrusted the matter to counsel did not amount to sufficient cause after valid service. The fact that minor respondents attained majority did not alter the result because, under Order 32 Rule 12 CPC, they had to take steps to disown guardian representation and contest independently; having not done so, they remained bound. The recall application was rejected as not maintainable. en-us Fri, 22 Mar 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 11 Apr 2023 10:29:49 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=307400 Order 41 Rule 21 CPC permits recall and rehearing of an appeal only where the respondent was not duly served or was prevented by sufficient cause from appearing and the appeal was heard ex parte. Here, notice had been duly served, respondents were represented by counsel, and the motor accident appeal was heard in full, so those conditions were absent. A plea of a widow having entrusted the matter to counsel did not amount to sufficient cause after valid service. The fact that minor respondents attained majority did not alter the result because, under Order 32 Rule 12 CPC, they had to take steps to disown guardian representation and contest independently; having not done so, they remained bound. The recall application was rejected as not maintainable. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 22 Mar 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=307400