Prasad Dattatraya Prabhune Vs. Suresh Narottamdas Parmar & Anr.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 5060 of 2000
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 1896 of 2000)
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 1896 of 2000)
Petitioner: Prasad Dattatraya Prabhune
Respondent: Suresh Narottamdas Parmar & Anr.
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 5060 of 2000
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 1896 of 2000)
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 1896 of 2000)
Judges: S.P. BHARUCHA, Y.K. SABHARWAL & S.N. VARIAVA, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Sep 15, 2000
Head Note:
CIVIL LAW
Civil Procedure Code, 1908
Section 115 – Revision petition – Dismissal – High Court finding no question of jurisdiction – Revision preferred against order of rejection of application for additional issues. Held that orders set aside and revision restored for being decided on merits.
(Paras 3,4)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. The notice on the special leave petition stated that the matter might be disposed of at this stage, by an order setting aside the order under challenge and restoring the revision appli-cation to the High Court to be heard and disposed of afresh.
3. The respondents were the plaintiffs in a suit before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune. The appellant filed an application for framing of additional issues in the suit. The learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, rejected the application. Thereagainst, the appellant filed a civil revision application in the High Court. It appears that the matter was heard on 26th October 1999, when Counsel, on behalf of the appellant, stated that no reply had been filed by the other side to the application for framing additional issues. On that basis, the learned Single Judge, hear-ing the civil revision application, ordered notice to issue. On the next day, Counsel for the appellant went to the learned Single Judge and stated that he was in error and that a short reply had been filed by the other side to the application for framing additional issues. The learned Single Judge, thereupon, recalled the order of notice; he then stated that he found no question of jurisdiction was involved, and rejected the civil revision application. We are of the view, in the circumstances, that the interests of justice require the civil revision applica-tion to be heard and disposed of on merits.
4. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the order under chal-lenge is set aside insofar as it rejects the civil revision application. The Civil Revision Application No. 1257/1999 is restored to the file of the High Court to be heard and disposed of on merits. This shall be done expeditiously. The parties shall have liberty to apply to the High Court for a fixed date of hearing.
5. No order as to costs.
1. Leave granted.
2. The notice on the special leave petition stated that the matter might be disposed of at this stage, by an order setting aside the order under challenge and restoring the revision appli-cation to the High Court to be heard and disposed of afresh.
3. The respondents were the plaintiffs in a suit before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune. The appellant filed an application for framing of additional issues in the suit. The learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, rejected the application. Thereagainst, the appellant filed a civil revision application in the High Court. It appears that the matter was heard on 26th October 1999, when Counsel, on behalf of the appellant, stated that no reply had been filed by the other side to the application for framing additional issues. On that basis, the learned Single Judge, hear-ing the civil revision application, ordered notice to issue. On the next day, Counsel for the appellant went to the learned Single Judge and stated that he was in error and that a short reply had been filed by the other side to the application for framing additional issues. The learned Single Judge, thereupon, recalled the order of notice; he then stated that he found no question of jurisdiction was involved, and rejected the civil revision application. We are of the view, in the circumstances, that the interests of justice require the civil revision applica-tion to be heard and disposed of on merits.
4. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the order under chal-lenge is set aside insofar as it rejects the civil revision application. The Civil Revision Application No. 1257/1999 is restored to the file of the High Court to be heard and disposed of on merits. This shall be done expeditiously. The parties shall have liberty to apply to the High Court for a fixed date of hearing.
5. No order as to costs.
