IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2966 OF 2008 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2966 OF 2008 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2966 OF 2008 IN IN IN WRIT PETITION NO.7245 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.7245 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.7245 OF 2008 Mrs.Shireen K. Grewal ..Applicant. V/s. Cap. Kulwantsingh Grewal ..Respondent. Mr.R.G.Bhat with Lata Wadhawani for petitioner. Mr.G.S.Godbole with Nitin Mulye for respondent. CORAM : J.P.DEVADHAR, J. CORAM : J.P.DEVADHAR, J. CORAM : J.P.DEVADHAR, J. DATED : 18TH FEBRUARY, 2009. DATED : 18TH FEBRUARY, 2009. DATED : 18TH FEBRUARY, 2009. P.C. :- P.C. :- P.C. :- 1. This civil application is taken out by the applicant / wife (hereinafter referred to as the ‘respondent’) requesting that the ex-parte order passed on 11/12/2008 in Writ Petition No.7245 of 2008 be set aside. 2. The writ petition is filed by the husband to challenge the orders passed by the Family Court on 28/8/2008 and 22/3/2007. By order dated 22/3/2007 the Family Court had fixed the interim maintenance payable by the husband to the wife at - = : 2 : = - Rs.50,000/- per month and Rs.20,000/- per month for the minor child from the date of filing the application. By order dated 28/8/2008 the Family Court has rejected the application filed by the husband seeking modification of the order dated 22/3/2007. 3. On 11/12/2008 the writ petition was placed before me for admission and interim relief. None appeared for the respondent though the name of the respondent and her Advocate was shown on board. 4. As the matter was adjourned for settlement before the earlier Bench and it was reported that the settlement has failed, after hearing the counsel for the petitioner, I had admitted the Writ Petition on 11/12/2008. As regards the interim relief, I directed that the petition be placed on Board on 12/1/2009 and in the meantime directed the petitioner to deposit the maintenance amount as per the order passed on 9/7/2007 in Writ Petition No.3635 of 2007 between the same parties. 5. By this civil application, the respondent has pointed out that, on failure of settlement talks between the parties, the respondent had filed a praecipe on 8/12/2008 for placing the matter on - = : 3 : = - board and accordingly Mrs.Mhatre, J. had directed that the petition be placed for admission on 16/12/2008. In view of the order passed on the praecipe by Mrs. Mhatre, J. on 8/12/2008 the matter could not be placed for admission on 11/12/2008. Accordingly, it is submitted that the ex-parte order passed on 11/12/2008 be recalled. 6. It is not in dispute that on 8/12/2008 the respondent had not given any notice stating that the Court would be moved for placing the matter on board. Admittedly, the respondent or her advocate had not informed the petitioner or his advocate that on 8/12/2008, Mrs. Mhatre, J. had directed that the petition be placed for admission on 16/12/2008. Therefore, no fault can be found with the petitioner in arguing the case before me on 11/12/2008. 7. However, the High Court registry has admitted that the above petition was placed for admission before me on 11/12/2008 inadvertently. In these circumstances, I am inclined to recall the order passed by me on 11/12/2008. 8. It is contended by the counsel for the respondent that granting rule is within the discretion of the Court and it can be granted even without hearing the respondent. Relying upon the - = : 4 : = - Apex Court Judgment in the case of Promoters & Promoters & Promoters & Builders Assn. of Pune V/s. Pune Municipal Corpn. Builders Assn. of Pune V/s. Pune Municipal Corpn. Builders Assn. of Pune V/s. Pune Municipal Corpn. & Ors. & Ors. & Ors. reported in (2007) 6 Supreme Court Cases (2007) 6 Supreme Court Cases (2007) 6 Supreme Court Cases 143 143 143, learned counsel for the petitioner / husband submits that once the writ petition is admitted the same cannot be recalled. He submits that the ad- interim relief granted may be modified after hearing the respondent, but it would not be proper to recall the order of admitting the writ petition. 9. It is true that ordinarily the rule granted on a writ petition is not recalled and it is the interim relief which could be modified. However, once it is brought to my notice that the matter was inadvertently placed before me on 11/12/2008 and there was a direction by the Court to place the matter on board on 16/12/2008, in my view, it would be just and proper to recall the order dated 11/12/2008. It is also true that on 11/12/2008 the name of the respondent and her advocate being shown on board, they ought to have appeared on that day. However, for the lapse on the part of the Registry in placing the matter before me inadvertently on 11/12/2008, I am constrained to recall the order passed by me on 11/12/2008. 10. Accordingly, the order passed by me on - = : 5 : = - 11/12/2008 is hereby recalled. However, payments made by the petitioner pursuant to the order passed on 11/12/2008 shall be subject to the result of this Writ Petition. 11. Civil Application is disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs. 12. At the instance of learned counsel for the petitioner / husband, the operation of this order is stayed for a period of 6 weeks. (J.P. DEVADHAR, J.) (J.P. DEVADHAR, J.) (J.P. DEVADHAR, J.)