Facts of the Case

The petitioner, M/s. Ambience Hospitality Pvt. Ltd., filed an application seeking recall/rectification of the order dated 23.11.2017 passed by the Delhi High Court. The petitioner alleged that certain clerical mistakes had occurred in the earlier order which materially affected the decision.

The petitioner contended that after the final hearing on 15.11.2017, the Court had allegedly granted 15 days’ time for filing written submissions, but due to the unavailability of the stenographer, the written submissions could not be prepared and filed before the order was pronounced.

Upon examining the judicial record, the Court found that the order dated 15.11.2017 merely recorded that arguments were heard and judgment was reserved, without granting any time for filing written submissions. The Court further observed that the matter was already listed for pronouncement on 23.11.2017.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the petitioner had made out a valid case for recall/rectification of the order dated 23.11.2017?
  2. Whether alleged clerical mistakes justified reopening the matter?
  3. Whether a recall application can be used as a substitute for re-hearing the matter?

Petitioner’s Arguments

  • The petitioner argued that certain clerical errors in the order materially affected the outcome.
  • It was contended that the Court had allegedly permitted filing of written arguments within 15 days after reserving judgment.
  • Due to practical difficulties, the written submissions could not be filed before pronouncement of the judgment.
  • Therefore, rectification or recall of the order was necessary in the interest of justice.

Respondent’s Arguments

The respondent did not appear during the hearing. However, the Court independently examined the judicial record and procedural history before arriving at its conclusion.

Court Findings / Court Order

The Delhi High Court dismissed the application and held that:

  • The record clearly showed that no permission was granted for filing written submissions after reserving judgment.
  • The petitioner’s claim in this regard was factually incorrect.
  • The matter had already been fixed for pronouncement, and the petitioner’s explanation was unsupported by record.
  • The so-called clerical errors raised by the petitioner were, in substance, an attempt to reopen the entire matter.
  • A recall/rectification application cannot be used as a device for re-hearing or seeking a fresh decision.

Accordingly, the application was dismissed as being devoid of merit, while granting liberty to the petitioner to take appropriate legal remedies available under law.

Important Clarification

This judgment clarifies an important procedural principle:

Rectification and recall jurisdiction is limited and cannot be converted into a substantive review or re-hearing mechanism.

Where a party seeks reconsideration of merits under the guise of correcting clerical mistakes, such application is liable to be rejected.

 Link to download the order - https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/app/case_number_pdf/2018:DHC:1424/SDS26022018CRLR162015.pdf

Top of Form

Bottom of Form

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.