M/s Himalayan Home Appliances Vs. M/s ASCO Switch Gear Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. CMPMO No.147 of 2019 04.11.2025 Present: Mr. Sudhir Thakur, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Karun Negi, Advocate, for the petitioner. CMP No.24828 of 2025 The present application has been filed seeking recall of order dated 12.03.2025, whereby petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is sought to be restored, as the same had been dismissed for non- prosecution. Heard counsel for the applicant. The brief facts giving rise to the present application are that the present applicant/plaintiff before the learned trial Court had filed an application under Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act for comparison of signatures of one late Sh. Gurbhajan Saini. The said application had been dismissed vide order dated 04.04.2019, which was challenged before this Court. It would be pertinent to note that the said application had been filed when the lis before the learned trial Court had been fixed for final arguments for 25.04.2019. On assailing the impugned order dated 04.04.2019, proceedings before the learned trial Court had been stayed vide order dated 24.04.2019. No steps for effecting service upon the respondent had been taken in pursuance to order dated 24.04.2019. Thereafter, the matter was listed for 17.12.2021. In terms of order dated 17.12.2021, steps for service were to be taken within fifteen days of the said order. It was made clear in the said order that if steps are not taken within fifteen days, then the order passed in CMP No. 3400 of 2019 shall stand automatically vacated without further reference to the Court. Admittedly, no steps were taken within 15 days in term of order dated 17.12.2021. In view thereof, interim order dated 24.04.2019 stood automatically vacated. From a perusal of the order sheets, it is evident that the petitioner neither appeared on 17.12.2021 nor on 19.12.2023. Even none was present on behalf of the petitioner on 12.03.2025, therefore, the Court was left with no other option, except to dismiss the said petition for non- prosecution. In the aforesaid backdrop present application has been filed for recall of the order dated 12.03.2025. In the application, the following cause for non-appearance and for not timely prosecuting the matter has been averred:- “That the Power of Attorney signed by the petitioner/applicant was in favour of Sh. Anirudh Sharma Advocate who was working with the Senior advocate appearing in the present petition in the year 2019 and he was the instructing counsel in the present case and Sr. Advocate appeared in the present case on 24.04.2021 and thereafter in the year 2021 Sh. Anirudh Sharma left the office of Sr. Advocate, however the Power of Attorney of Sh. Anirudh Sharma remained there in the file and only his name was reflected in the cause list. Sh. Anirudh Sharma did not appear in the present case and the Sr. Advocate was not intimated about fixation of the case on the dates and fresh Power of Attorney could not be filed.” Insofar as knowledge of the order dated 12.03.2025 sought to be recalled is concerned, the following has been averred:- “That it was only in the last week of July 2025 when the applicant/ petitioner contacted the office of Sr. Advocate and the case was searched on the website of the Hon'ble High Court and came to know that the case was dismissed for the want of prosecution as the steps could not be taken and the order of the Hon'ble court was not complied and the case was dismissed for want of prosecution on 12.03.2025.” The application, in the case at hand, filed for recall of order dated 12.03.2025 is not supported by an affidavit of the counsel. What has been offered in the application is an excuse to deny responsibility and consequences. Not keeping a track of the case reflects “want of diligence or inaction.” The applicant, in the case at hand, has acted in most negligent manner in prosecuting his case before this Court and hence, there is no sufficient cause for recalling order dated 12.03.2025. In the case at hand, the applicant has been successful in thwarting adjudication of the lis before the learned trial Court, as by obtaining an interim order by this Court on 24.04.2019, proceedings before the Civil Judge in the lis pending adjudication had been stayed and thereafter no process for effecting service of the respondents was taken till the dismissal of the petition before this Court for non-prosecution on 12.03.2025. As has already been stated supra, when the order dated 04.04.2019 was assailed before this Court and an interim order staying proceedings before the learned trial Court was obtained on 24.04.2019, the lis before the learned trial Court had been fixed for final arguments on 25.04.2019. For more than 6 years plus, the lis had been pending in this Court without steps having been taken for effecting service of the respondents. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the present application is dismissed, being devoid of merit. Application stands disposed of. (Bipin C. Negi) Judge 04th November, 2025 (Gaurav Rawat)