Narpat Singh Vs. Rajasthan Financial Corporation
EmailAppeal: I.A. Nos. 15-16 of 2007 in Civil Appeal Nos.2181-2182/2001
With Contempt Petition (C) Nos. 151-152 of 2007 in C.A. Nos. 2181-2182 of 2001
[From the final Judgment and Order dated 22.05.2000 of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur Bench in S.B. Civil 2nd Appeal Nos. 447/1997 and 232/1998]
With Contempt Petition (C) Nos. 151-152 of 2007 in C.A. Nos. 2181-2182 of 2001
[From the final Judgment and Order dated 22.05.2000 of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur Bench in S.B. Civil 2nd Appeal Nos. 447/1997 and 232/1998]
Petitioner: Narpat Singh
Respondent: Rajasthan Financial Corporation
Apeal: I.A. Nos. 15-16 of 2007 in Civil Appeal Nos.2181-2182/2001
With Contempt Petition (C) Nos. 151-152 of 2007 in C.A. Nos. 2181-2182 of 2001
[From the final Judgment and Order dated 22.05.2000 of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur Bench in S.B. Civil 2nd Appeal Nos. 447/1997 and 232/1998]
With Contempt Petition (C) Nos. 151-152 of 2007 in C.A. Nos. 2181-2182 of 2001
[From the final Judgment and Order dated 22.05.2000 of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur Bench in S.B. Civil 2nd Appeal Nos. 447/1997 and 232/1998]
Judges: A.K. Mathur and Markandey Katju, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Sep 24, 2007
Appearances:
Mr. Sudhir Kumar Gupta Advocates for the Appellant.
Mr. Sushil Kumar Jain, Mr. Puneet Jain, Mr. Piyush Jain, Mr. H.D. Thanvi, Advocates for the Respondents.
Mr. Sushil Kumar Jain, Mr. Puneet Jain, Mr. Piyush Jain, Mr. H.D. Thanvi, Advocates for the Respondents.
Head Note:
Constitution
Constitution of India, 1950
Article 136 – I.As in civil appeals, after disposal – I.As for clarification and directions. Held, are totally misconceived as I.A.s. are tenable in pending cases except for correcting clerical and accidental mistakes. (Para 2)
Constitution of India, 1950
Article 136 – I.As in civil appeals, after disposal – I.As for clarification and directions. Held, are totally misconceived as I.A.s. are tenable in pending cases except for correcting clerical and accidental mistakes. (Para 2)
JUDGEMENT:
A.K. Mathur, J.
1. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. I.A. No.15- 16 for clarification and direction of Court’s Order dated 3.5.2007 are totally misconceived. Moreover, ordinarily no I.A. lies after a case is finally disposed of. Ordinarily, an I.A. is maintain able only in a pending case. Once a case is finally disposed of the Court becomes functus officio, and thereafter an I.A. lies ordinarily only for correcting clerical or accidental mistakes. The same are accordingly, dismissed.
3. Put up the Contempt Petitions (C) No. 151-152 of 2007 in Civil Appeal Nos.2181-2182 of 2001 after six months.
1. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. I.A. No.15- 16 for clarification and direction of Court’s Order dated 3.5.2007 are totally misconceived. Moreover, ordinarily no I.A. lies after a case is finally disposed of. Ordinarily, an I.A. is maintain able only in a pending case. Once a case is finally disposed of the Court becomes functus officio, and thereafter an I.A. lies ordinarily only for correcting clerical or accidental mistakes. The same are accordingly, dismissed.
3. Put up the Contempt Petitions (C) No. 151-152 of 2007 in Civil Appeal Nos.2181-2182 of 2001 after six months.
