Rai Singh Vs. tate (Delhi Administration) & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Criminal Appeal No. of 1987.
(Arising Out of SLP (Crl.) No.3505/86.
(From the Judgment and Order dated 24.10.1986 & 24.11.1986 of the High Court of Delhi in Criminal Misc.(Main) No.1550/86, 404/86 & 405/86)
(Arising Out of SLP (Crl.) No.3505/86.
(From the Judgment and Order dated 24.10.1986 & 24.11.1986 of the High Court of Delhi in Criminal Misc.(Main) No.1550/86, 404/86 & 405/86)
Petitioner: Rai Singh
Respondent: tate (Delhi Administration) & Ors.
Apeal: Criminal Appeal No. of 1987.
(Arising Out of SLP (Crl.) No.3505/86.
(From the Judgment and Order dated 24.10.1986 & 24.11.1986 of the High Court of Delhi in Criminal Misc.(Main) No.1550/86, 404/86 & 405/86)
(Arising Out of SLP (Crl.) No.3505/86.
(From the Judgment and Order dated 24.10.1986 & 24.11.1986 of the High Court of Delhi in Criminal Misc.(Main) No.1550/86, 404/86 & 405/86)
Judges: E.S.VENKATARAMIAH & M.M.DUTT, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Mar 10, 1987
Appearances:
Mr. M.C. Bhandare, Senior Advocate and Mrs. S.Dixit, Advocates for the Petitioner.
Mr. R.M. Bagai and Mr. G.K. Bansal, Advocates for the Respondents.
Head Note:
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE:
Ex-parte order – High Court refused to hear the petition of the appellant to reconsider the ex-parte order and vacate it – High Court was in error in refusing to hear the appellant merely because the ex-parte order had not been complied with by the appellant.
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. Special leave granted. We are informed that the order dated 24-10-86 which has been passed by the High Court earlier was an ex-parte order and it was inconsistent with the order passed by the Magistrate on 21-10-1986. In these circumstances the appellant was right in moving the High Court by a petition to re-consider the ex-parte order and to vacate it. The High Court should have in the circumstances heard both the parties and passed an order regarding the custody of the vehicle in question during the pendency of the Criminal case. The High Court was in error in refusing to hear the appellant merely because the ex-parte order dated 24-10-86 had not been complied with by the appellant. We, therefore, set aside the order dated 24-11-86 and remand the case to the High Court to consider whether the ex-parte order dated 24-10-86 should be allowed to remain in operation. The status quo will continue until the High Court passes the order. We direct the High Court to dispose of the matter within three weeks. A copy of this order shall be sent to the High Court tomorrow evening. Both the parties may appear before the Registrar of the High Court on 20-3-1987 so that the case may be fixed for final hearing before the High Court within one week thereafter.
2. We do not express any opinion on the merits of the case and also correctness of the order dated 24-10-86. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
1. Special leave granted. We are informed that the order dated 24-10-86 which has been passed by the High Court earlier was an ex-parte order and it was inconsistent with the order passed by the Magistrate on 21-10-1986. In these circumstances the appellant was right in moving the High Court by a petition to re-consider the ex-parte order and to vacate it. The High Court should have in the circumstances heard both the parties and passed an order regarding the custody of the vehicle in question during the pendency of the Criminal case. The High Court was in error in refusing to hear the appellant merely because the ex-parte order dated 24-10-86 had not been complied with by the appellant. We, therefore, set aside the order dated 24-11-86 and remand the case to the High Court to consider whether the ex-parte order dated 24-10-86 should be allowed to remain in operation. The status quo will continue until the High Court passes the order. We direct the High Court to dispose of the matter within three weeks. A copy of this order shall be sent to the High Court tomorrow evening. Both the parties may appear before the Registrar of the High Court on 20-3-1987 so that the case may be fixed for final hearing before the High Court within one week thereafter.
2. We do not express any opinion on the merits of the case and also correctness of the order dated 24-10-86. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
