https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781298 Inherent jurisdiction cannot be used to bypass the statutory bar on a second revision by relabelling a challenge already rejected in revision, and the petition was therefore not maintainable. Recall of a complainant for cross-examination at the stage of final arguments, after repeated opportunities over several years and closure of defence evidence, is discretionary and requires genuine necessity for a just decision; vague excuses did not justify reopening the evidence. The material indicated repeated default and delay rather than any miscarriage of justice, so the refusal to recall was upheld and the trial and revisional orders remained undisturbed. en-us Thu, 06 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 14 Nov 2025 09:42:53 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781298 Inherent jurisdiction cannot be used to bypass the statutory bar on a second revision by relabelling a challenge already rejected in revision, and the petition was therefore not maintainable. Recall of a complainant for cross-examination at the stage of final arguments, after repeated opportunities over several years and closure of defence evidence, is discretionary and requires genuine necessity for a just decision; vague excuses did not justify reopening the evidence. The material indicated repeated default and delay rather than any miscarriage of justice, so the refusal to recall was upheld and the trial and revisional orders remained undisturbed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 06 Nov 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=781298