IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12874 of 2011 Anil Kumar Singh, son of Sri Sharda Nand Singh, resident of village+ P.O. Kundal, P.S. Singhia, District- Samastipur. …. Petitioner Versus 1. Asha Devi w/o Late Nand Kishore Singh, 2. Kamini Kumari 3. Pratima Kumari Both daughters of Late Nand Kishore Singh … Respondent 1st Party 4. Sri Sharda Nand Singh son of Late Bala Singh … Respondent 2nd party 5. Smt. Saroj Devi w/o Sri Sharda Nand Singh 6. Ajit Kumar Singh, son of Sri Sharda Nand Singh All residents of village+ P.O. Kundal, P.S. Singhia, District- Samastipur … Respondent 3rd party ----------- 7 12.09.2011 Heard learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent petitioner. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed against the order dated 09.04.2007 passed by FTC-V, Samastipur, in Title Appeal No. 75 of 2006 whereby the learned court below directed the appellant to file requisites for issuance of notice on none appearing respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that by terms of order dated 22.01.2007 the learned court below directed the appellant to file requisites for issuance of appeal notice on the respondents within 31.01.2007. The petitioner appeared and filed an application on 09.04.2007 as contained in Annexure-2 praying therein to dismiss the appeal for non-compliance of the order dated 22.01.2007. Learned counsel further submitted that in the bake of the said application the learned court below passed the order “call for rejoinder that why appeal may not be 2 dismissed for non-compliance of Court’s order”. This order was penned through and then again it was ordered in the bake of the said application. It was ordered that office is directed to call for the lower court records at once and appellant was directed to file requisites. In view of the said order, the office Clerk has written order dated 09.04.2007 which has been filed as Annexure-3 to this writ application. The learned counsel relied upon a decision reported in 2006 (4) PLJR page 328 and submitted that the learned court below had no jurisdiction to review the earlier order passed by him whereby it was directed to call for rejoinder from the appellant. From perusal of the aforesaid judgment relied upon by the petitioner, it appears that in that case the learned Sub-Judge after noticing the controversy and after hearing the parties by order dated 21.07.2005 accepted the stamp report of the plaintiff petitioner and directed payment of the Court fee accordingly, which was thereafter suo motu reviewed by the court below noticing the judgment of Patna High Court. In the present case, it appears that in the bake of the application the order was passed without hearing anybody. Therefore, in my opinion, it is not a case that the learned court below reviewed the earlier order. The application filed by the petitioner under Order 9 Rule-2 provides that if on the date fixed it is found that the summons has not been served for the failure of the plaintiff, the Court may make an order that the suit be dismissed. Therefore, it appears that this 3 provision as contained in Order 9 Rule 2 is not mandatory. On the application of the respondent, it was not obligatory on the part of the Court to dismiss the appeal. Moreover, the plaintiff- petitioner has already appeared in that case and therefore, the learned court below directed the appellant to file requisites on the non appearing respondents. The Court has got inherent jurisdiction to recall orders for doing justice if some mistake is found. In such view of the mater, substantial justice has been done in favour of the respondents herein. As such in my opinion, it is not a fit case where the impugned order be interfered with in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, this application is dismissed. Md. Ibrarul ( Mungeshwar Sahoo, J.)