After restoration of a writ petition, parties must pursue objections within it, not through a separate MCC.

The petitioner, Amil Turakhia, filed the present Miscellaneous Civil Case under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking correction or modification of the order dated 14 August 2026 passed in Review Petition No. 1530 of 2026.

The petitioner objected to the recital that counsel for the review petitioner had been directed to supply the review petition and documents to “Shri Amil Turakhia,” allegedly appearing for Respondent No. 2, contending that this created the impression that Respondent No. 2 had been represented and heard, whereas he had neither been served nor afforded an opportunity of hearing.

The underlying Writ Petition No. 17106 of 2026 had been filed by the auction purchaser seeking possession of the secured property.

The writ petition was disposed of on 3 July 2026 with directions to the bank to expedite proceedings before the Debt Recovery Tribunal and with the clarification that the High Court had expressed no opinion on the merits.

Subsequently, the auction purchaser filed Review Petition No. 1530 of 2026, pursuant to which the order dated 3 July 2026 was recalled and the writ petition was restored to its original number.

Whether the order dated 14 August 2026 passed in Review Petition No. 1530 of 2026 should be corrected or modified under Section 151 CPC on the ground that the petitioner was neither served nor heard and that the order contained an erroneous recital regarding his representation?

Whether the petitioner’s objections should be adjudicated in the present MCC, or whether the parties should address them in the restored Writ Petition No. 17106 of 2026?

The Court considered the petitioner’s application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which preserves the High Court’s inherent powers to pass orders necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of process.

However, the Court applied the procedural principle that where the underlying writ petition has already been restored to its original number, issues arising from that proceeding should ordinarily be addressed in the restored proceeding itself rather than through a separate miscellaneous application, particularly where a separate application may create procedural confusion.

Although the petitioner alleged that the review order incorrectly suggested that he had appeared and had been supplied the review papers, the Court did not adjudicate the truth or legal effect of that allegation in the MCC.

The decisive consideration was that Review Petition No. 1530 of 2026 had already resulted in recall of the earlier order and restoration of Writ Petition No. 17106 of 2026 to its original number.

Consequently, the Court held that the parties could raise their objections, including the grievance regarding notice and hearing, in the restored writ petition itself.

Deciding those matters separately in the MCC was considered likely to cause further procedural confusion.

The Registry was directed to list the writ petition during the week commencing 15 September 2026, and a copy of the order was directed to be placed on the record of the writ petition.

The Court therefore neither restored the review petition for a fresh hearing nor granted the alternative relief of keeping the review order in abeyance.