Bona fide non-appearance warrants recall of dismissal and restoration of an admitted writ petition.

The petitioner sought review and recall of the order dated 6 August 2026 passed in W.P. No. 1480 of 2008, whereby the writ petition had been dismissed as infructuous.

The petitioner stated that the writ petition was listed for final hearing, but owing to changes in the High Court website and the manner in which the cause list was displayed, his counsel was unaware of the listing and remained absent.

The petitioner allegedly learned of the dismissal on 9 August 2026 and promptly approached the Court.

He contended that the writ petition had not become infructuous and that he continued to carry on business from the premises in question under interim protection granted by the Court.

The writ petition had been admitted on 25 February 2014, with the earlier protection against eviction continued.

The State opposed the review petition.

The Court applied the principles governing review and recall jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice, including the rule that a litigant should not ordinarily suffer due to an inadvertent or bona fide failure of appearance, particularly where the matter had been admitted and was pending final adjudication.

The Court further applied the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness, holding that an order founded substantially on a factual submission made in the absence of the affected party may be recalled where the party was deprived of an opportunity to contest that submission.

No specific statutory provision or judicial precedent was cited in the order.

The Court found the petitioner’s explanation for non-appearance to be bona fide and noted that the petitioner promptly approached the Court after learning of the dismissal.

Since the petitioner was unrepresented when the writ petition was taken up, he could not place before the Court the factual and legal position concerning the alleged surviving cause of action.

The dismissal as infructuous had substantially proceeded on the respondents’ assertion that the passage of time had extinguished the cause of action, but the petitioner had not been afforded an opportunity to contest that assertion.

Given that the writ petition had been admitted in 2014 and that interim protection against eviction had continued, dismissal in the petitioner’s absence could cause serious prejudice, particularly because the petitioner claimed to remain in possession and to be conducting business from the premises.

The Court therefore concluded that the interests of justice required recall and restoration rather than dismissal on the ground of alleged infructuousness.

The order dated 6 August 2026 dismissing W.P. No. 1480 of 2008 as infructuous was recalled, and the writ petition was restored to its original number.

The matter was directed to be placed before the appropriate Bench for consideration in accordance with law.