GUWAHATI, India, July 11 -- Gauhati High Court issued the following order on June 11:

1. Heard Shri A. Phukan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner /applicant.

2. The instant Interlocutory Application (IA) has been filed seeking recall / modification of the order dated 08.02.2024 passed by this Court in WP (Crl.) No. 27 of 2023. The applicant was Respondent No. 7 in the aforesaid writ petition.

3. By drawing the attention of this Court to the averments made in the application, the learned counsel has submitted that there are certain new developments which would require recall / modification of the order dated 08.02.2024. It has been submitted that the minor daughter of the parties is presently admitted in Mussoorie International School, where certain restrictions are there regarding telephonic access to the students. He has submitted that this Court in the aforesaid order dated 08.02.2024, had made certain observations regarding affording telephonic access of the minor daughter with the writ petitioner / opposite party.

4. As regards the aspect of maintainability of the present IA, the learned counsel has submitted that the present application is based on subsequent developments that have arisen only after the passing of the said order. Therefore, it has been argued that the IA would be maintainable.

5. The contentions advanced by the learned counsel have been carefully examined.

6. The law regarding the maintainability of any application seeking recall or modification of an order finally passed in a proceeding is well settled.

7. In the case of State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Brahm Dutt Sharma & Anr. reported in AIR 1987 SC 943, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has made the following observation.

"10. The High Court's order is not sustainable for yet another reason. Respondents' writ petition challenging the order of dismissal had been finally disposed of on 10.8.1984, thereafter nothing remained pending before the High Court. No miscellaneous application could be filed in the writ petition to revive proceedings in respect of subsequent events after two years. If the respondent was ag- grieved by the notice dated 29.1.86 he could have filed a separate petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the validity of the notice as it provided a separate cause of action to him. The respondent was not entitled to assail validity of the notice before the High Court by means of a miscellaneous application in the writ petition which had already been decided. The High Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the application as no proceedings were pending before it. The High Court committed error in entertaining the respondent's application which was founded on a separate cause of action. When proceedings stand terminated by final disposal of writ petition it is not open to the Court to reopen the proceedings by means of a miscellaneous application in respect of a matter which provided a fresh cause of action. If this principle is not followed there would be confusion and chaos and the finality of proceedings would cease to have any meaning."

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=A9S7c5LDIsB6RXaCf816xw1KEHK8c6GCPTZXW8n%2FrTPcxLt0aR4rVko1L63lftxM&caseno=I.A.(Crl.)/455/2025&cCode=1&cino=GAHC010089422025&state_code=6&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.