M.R. Narayanan Vs. Sri V. Mohanlal
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No.2406 of 1989.
(Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 13590/88.)
(Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 13590/88.)
Petitioner: M.R. Narayanan
Respondent: Sri V. Mohanlal
Apeal: Civil Appeal No.2406 of 1989.
(Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 13590/88.)
(Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 13590/88.)
Judges: G.L. OZA, S. NATARAJAN & K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Dec 04, 1989
Head Note:
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
Ex parte order – Plea for re-hearing rejected by the High Court – Case involving serious questions of law – Denial of opportunity for re-hearing held unjustified – Matter remitted for fresh disposal.
JUDGEMENT:
O R D E R
1. Special leave granted. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. In this matter when the appeal was heard by the High Court, it appears that the counsel for the appellant and also the appellant were not present. The learned Judge, therefore, proceeded to dispose of the matter ex-parte without any opportunity to the appellant of being heard. Subsequently an application was submitted by the counsel and later on by the party also for re-hearing of the appeal. Unfortunately, the learned Judge by a short order rejected all prayer and maintained his original order.
3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, it appears to us that the High Court was not justified in rejecting the prayer for re-hearing. The appellant appears to have engaged a counsel who was not afforded an opportunity of hearing. That apart, there was no proper assistance to the High Court when it disposed of the revision petition. There is no reason for hustling through in a matter where serious questions affecting the rights of parties arise for determination. The High Court should not give that impression to the litigant public.
4. The judgment of the High Court is, therefore, set aside and the matter is sent back to the High Court for fresh disposal on merits and in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible preferably within six months from the date of re-opening.
5. Hon’ble the Chief Justice is requested to assign the revision application before the High Court to any other Judge, as the Judge who had heard the matter has already formed an opinion on this question.
6. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. No costs.
1. Special leave granted. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. In this matter when the appeal was heard by the High Court, it appears that the counsel for the appellant and also the appellant were not present. The learned Judge, therefore, proceeded to dispose of the matter ex-parte without any opportunity to the appellant of being heard. Subsequently an application was submitted by the counsel and later on by the party also for re-hearing of the appeal. Unfortunately, the learned Judge by a short order rejected all prayer and maintained his original order.
3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, it appears to us that the High Court was not justified in rejecting the prayer for re-hearing. The appellant appears to have engaged a counsel who was not afforded an opportunity of hearing. That apart, there was no proper assistance to the High Court when it disposed of the revision petition. There is no reason for hustling through in a matter where serious questions affecting the rights of parties arise for determination. The High Court should not give that impression to the litigant public.
4. The judgment of the High Court is, therefore, set aside and the matter is sent back to the High Court for fresh disposal on merits and in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible preferably within six months from the date of re-opening.
5. Hon’ble the Chief Justice is requested to assign the revision application before the High Court to any other Judge, as the Judge who had heard the matter has already formed an opinion on this question.
6. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. No costs.
