AO/94/2015
2025 Latest Caselaw 6357 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

AO/94/2015 on 16 December, 2025

Author: Pankaj Purohit

Bench: Pankaj Purohit

               Office Notes, reports,
             orders or proceedings or
SL.
      Date         directions and                    COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No
              Registrar's order with
                     Signatures

                                        Recall Application (MCC/602/2020)
                                        in
                                        AO No.94 of 2015
                                        Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.

Mr. P.C. Maulekhi, learned counsel for appellant/Insurance Company.

2. Mr. Bhuwan Bhatt, learned counsel for respondent No.4/applicant-Owner of the vehicle in-question, who has moved the recall application.

3. Today, the matter is listed on recall application (MCC/602/2020) moved by respondent No.4/applicant, for recalling judgment and order dated 05.11.2019, whereby, the appeal was partly allowed and recovery rights have also been given to the appellant-Insurance Company against the respondent No.4-Owner of the vehicle in-question.

4. It is contended by learned counsel for respondent No.4/applicant that the notice of the present appeal from order had never been served upon him, therefore, he could not participate in the proceeding when the matter was taken up and resulted into passing of the judgment and order dated 05.11.2019.

5. I have perused the record i.e. Part-B of appeal. It is evidently clear from Part-B that summon of the appeal has been served upon respondent No.4-M/s Siddharth Transport Company, Transport Nagar, Sahaspur Road, Dehradun.

6. Recall application has been moved by respondent No.4-applicant on the premise that M/s Siddharth Transport Company is not situated at Sahaspur Road rather it is situated at Saharanpur Road.

7. From the reverse side of notice, it is clear that the notice has been received by the dispatch clerk of M/s Siddharth Transport Company and he has also put seal of the said company on the reverse of summons on 25.03.2015. For ready reference, the remark of process-server is quoted hereinbelow":-

"vkt fnukad 25-3-15 dks mDr fuoklh VªkUliksVZ uxj lgkjuiqj jksM nsgjknwu esa tkdj fl)kFkZ VªkUliksVZ ds fMLisp ckcw ls feys mUgksaus vius foHkkx dk uksfVl udy lfgr izkIr djds vius gLrk{kj o foHkkx eksgj yxk nhA fjiksVZ lsok esa izLrqr gSA"

8. However, learned counsel for respondent No.4-applicant disputed the aforesaid fact about seal of Company saying that the real seal of M/s Siddharth Transport Company is put with the affidavit filed in support of recall application.

9. This contention raised by learned counsel for respondent No.4-applicant is totally bereft of merit for the reason that for the period of 10 years there may be changes in the seal of M/s Siddharth Transport Company, thus, service upon respondent No.4-owner of the vehicle in- question was sufficient, who deliberately

kept away from the proceedings and now when the liability is fixed upon respondent No.4, he filed recall application playing fraud with the Court. Thus, no case is made out to recall the order dated 05.11.2019.

10. Accordingly, recall application (MCC/ 602/2020) is rejected with the cost of Rs.25,000/- to be paid in Uttarakhand High Court Bar Association Advocates' Welfare Fund.

11. Interim order dated 20.09.2023 stands vacated.

(Pankaj Purohit, J.) 16.12.2025 PN