1 (Crim appln 318 of 2010) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.318 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1588 OF 2010 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.319 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1589 OF 2010 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.320 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1590 OF 2010 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 321 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1591 OF 2010 Mrs.Shainamma Sabu ...Applicant vs. Mr.Jojimon Joseph & Ors. ...Respondents ----- Mr. Dundappa B. Patil and Mrs. Meenakshi D. Patil for Applicant Mr.Rajesh S. Thakur for Respondent No.1 Mr.P.S. Hingorani -APP for the State ----- CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATED: 9TH SEPTEMBER, 2010 P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicant, Respondent No.1 and the learned APP for the State. 2. The Applicant has filed his application for 2 (Crim appln 318 of 2010) recalling the order dated 12 th August, 2010 passed by this Court in the group of writ petitions. 3. It is submitted that the Counsel for the Applicant could not remain present in the Court since he was busy and was on his legs in another Court. It is submitted that the statement made by the Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent is incorrect in the sense that only in one case the affidavit in lieu of evidence was filed and other cases no such affidavit has been filed. It is submitted that the plea was recorded on the first date itself. 4. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the Respondent No.1 submitted that the said order was passed on merits and, therefore, this Court did not have jurisdiction to recall the said order. He invited my attention to the impugned order. 5. After having heard both the Counsel at length, I am of the opinion that an opportunity be given to the Applicant herein to make his submission. It is clearly recorded in the order dated 12 th August, 2010 that the Applicant and his counsel both were absent when the matter was called out. The statement made by the Counsel for the Respondent that the plea was recorded 3 (Crim appln 318 of 2010) and in view of the said statement, it is observed that it is not possible to interfere with the order of issuance of process. 6. Now it is submitted by the learned Counsel for the Applicant that the statement is not correct and that though the plea was recorded on the first date, affidavit in lieu of evidence has been filed only in one case. Under these circumstances, it would be appropriate if the said order is recalled. 7. In the result, the application is allowed and the order dated 12 th August, 2010 is recalled. Writ petitions are restored to the file. 8. The learned counsel for the Respondent submits that the papers of the main writ petitions are not with him, therefore, he seeks some time. 9. Stand over for two weeks. In the meantime, the Trial Court shall not proceed to hear the cases of the Applicants/Petitioners. 10. Application is disposed of. (V.M. KANADE J.)