Kamar Jaikrishna Panjabi Vs. Manghraj Kachardas Gothi & Ors.
EmailAppeal: (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 5210/2000
Petitioner: Kamar Jaikrishna Panjabi
Respondent: Manghraj Kachardas Gothi & Ors.
Apeal: (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 5210/2000
Judges: V.N. KHARE & N. SANTOSH HEGDE, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Apr 28, 2000
Head Note:
CONSTITUTION
Article 136 – Relief – SLP pending – Time given to move High Court for review as per request – Review filed, but dismissed on grounds of pendency of SLP. Held that orders are set aside. High Court asked to decide the petition.
(Para 3)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. On 7th April, 2000 the appellant filed the Special Leave Petition out of which the present appeal arises before us. When the matter was taken up Mr. F.S. Nariman, learned senior Counsel, appearing for the appellant, prayed for adjournment of the case for three weeks to enable the appellant to file a Review Petition before the Bombay High Court. At that stage, Counsel for the respondent put in appearance in the matter. After we heard the matter for some time, we adjourned the case for three weeks. The respondents’ Counsel made a statement that the respondent would not execute the decree against the appellant. It appears that immediately thereafter, the appellant filed a Review Petition before the Bombay High Court. The High Court by an order dated 26th April, 2000 held, that the Review Petition was not maintain-able in view of pendency of the Special Leave petition in this Court. The appellant has filed a copy of the said order dated 26th April, 2000 by means of an application. We permit the order of the High Court to be taken on record.
3. We have perused the order and heard Counsel for the parties. Since the
appellant intends to pursue the remedy by way of a Review Petition, we set aside the order dated 26th April, 2000 passed by the High Court of Bombay rejecting the Review Petition filed by the appellant. While doing so, we do not express any opinion as regard the merits or maintainability of the Review Petition filed by the appellant before the High Court.
4. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we re-quest the High Court to decide the Review Petition in accordance with law expeditiously, preferably by 31st July, 2000. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent has given an undertaking to the effect that the respondent shall not execute the decree against the appellant till then. The appeal thus stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms without any prejudice to the rights and contention of the parties before the High Court. No costs.
1. Leave granted.
2. On 7th April, 2000 the appellant filed the Special Leave Petition out of which the present appeal arises before us. When the matter was taken up Mr. F.S. Nariman, learned senior Counsel, appearing for the appellant, prayed for adjournment of the case for three weeks to enable the appellant to file a Review Petition before the Bombay High Court. At that stage, Counsel for the respondent put in appearance in the matter. After we heard the matter for some time, we adjourned the case for three weeks. The respondents’ Counsel made a statement that the respondent would not execute the decree against the appellant. It appears that immediately thereafter, the appellant filed a Review Petition before the Bombay High Court. The High Court by an order dated 26th April, 2000 held, that the Review Petition was not maintain-able in view of pendency of the Special Leave petition in this Court. The appellant has filed a copy of the said order dated 26th April, 2000 by means of an application. We permit the order of the High Court to be taken on record.
3. We have perused the order and heard Counsel for the parties. Since the
appellant intends to pursue the remedy by way of a Review Petition, we set aside the order dated 26th April, 2000 passed by the High Court of Bombay rejecting the Review Petition filed by the appellant. While doing so, we do not express any opinion as regard the merits or maintainability of the Review Petition filed by the appellant before the High Court.
4. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we re-quest the High Court to decide the Review Petition in accordance with law expeditiously, preferably by 31st July, 2000. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent has given an undertaking to the effect that the respondent shall not execute the decree against the appellant till then. The appeal thus stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms without any prejudice to the rights and contention of the parties before the High Court. No costs.
