Ankush Keshav Bowlekar Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 489 of 2000
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.398 of 1999)
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.398 of 1999)
Petitioner: Ankush Keshav Bowlekar
Respondent: State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 489 of 2000
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.398 of 1999)
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.398 of 1999)
Judges: S.P. BHARUCHA, SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI & M.B. SHAH, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Jan 21, 2000
Head Note:
CIVIL LAW
Civil Procedure Code, 1908
Notice – Validity – Notice neither dated, nor signed nor bearing seal – Revenue Rules providing that notice must be as per CPC – High Court basing order on same fact and dismissing writ. Held that High Court was in error. Appeal allowed and matter restored for decision on merits.
(Paras 2, 3)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. It is unnecessary to go in great detail in this matter. The High Court based its order on a notice which, as it has itself found, was neither signed nor dated nor bore the requisite seal. The rules required that notice must be issued as provided in the Code of Civil Procedure. Clearly, that was not done. No notice of such a kind can at all be considered valid. On the ground, therefore, that the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, we are of the view that he was in error.
3. It appears that there were other conclusions reached by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal that were also under challenge in the writ petition filed by the appellant. To that extent, the writ petition (Writ Petition No. AS-2239 of 1983) shall stand restored to the file of the High Court at Bombay to be heard and disposed of on merits.
4. Order on the appeal accordingly.
5. No order as to costs.
1. Leave granted.
2. It is unnecessary to go in great detail in this matter. The High Court based its order on a notice which, as it has itself found, was neither signed nor dated nor bore the requisite seal. The rules required that notice must be issued as provided in the Code of Civil Procedure. Clearly, that was not done. No notice of such a kind can at all be considered valid. On the ground, therefore, that the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, we are of the view that he was in error.
3. It appears that there were other conclusions reached by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal that were also under challenge in the writ petition filed by the appellant. To that extent, the writ petition (Writ Petition No. AS-2239 of 1983) shall stand restored to the file of the High Court at Bombay to be heard and disposed of on merits.
4. Order on the appeal accordingly.
5. No order as to costs.
