Pala Jhangola Vikas Samiti and Anr. Vs. Custodian Gen. of Evacuee Property and Ors.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 6514 of 2001
[From the Judgment and Order dated 12.4.1999 of the High Court of Delhi in C.W.P. No. 4443/1997]
[From the Judgment and Order dated 12.4.1999 of the High Court of Delhi in C.W.P. No. 4443/1997]
Petitioner: Pala Jhangola Vikas Samiti and Anr.
Respondent: Custodian Gen. of Evacuee Property and Ors.
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 6514 of 2001
[From the Judgment and Order dated 12.4.1999 of the High Court of Delhi in C.W.P. No. 4443/1997]
[From the Judgment and Order dated 12.4.1999 of the High Court of Delhi in C.W.P. No. 4443/1997]
Judges: Tarun Chatterjee & Harjit Singh Bedi, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Feb 27, 2008
Appearances:
Mr. Shekhar Prit Jha and Mr. B.K. Jha, Advocates for the Appellants.
Mr. Arun Kumar, Ms. V. Mohana, Mr. Rishi Kesh, Mr. Vinjay Kr. Garg and Mr. Fazal Ahmed, Advocates for the Respondents.
Mr. Arun Kumar, Ms. V. Mohana, Mr. Rishi Kesh, Mr. Vinjay Kr. Garg and Mr. Fazal Ahmed, Advocates for the Respondents.
Head Note:
Civil Law
Constitution of India, 1950
Articles 136, 226, 142 – Alternative remedy – Writ dismissed on ground of availability of remedy of statutory appeal. On appeal, held that liberty should be given to file appeal and if filed, same shall be decided without going into question of limitation.
Constitution of India, 1950
Articles 136, 226, 142 – Alternative remedy – Writ dismissed on ground of availability of remedy of statutory appeal. On appeal, held that liberty should be given to file appeal and if filed, same shall be decided without going into question of limitation.
Held:
Without going into the merit of the case, we are of the view that liberty should be granted to the appellants to file an appeal before the appellate authority and if such an appeal is filed, the appellate authority without going into the question of limitation shall decide the appeal on merits and in accordance with law after hearing the parties. (Para 3)
JUDGEMENT:
Order
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. On perusal of the impugned order against which this appeal has been filed we find that the High Court had dismissed the Writ Petition on the ground that in view of the statutory remedy of appeal and of the highly disputed questions of fact which have been sought to be raised, the Writ Petition could not be entertained.
3. Without going into the merit of the case, we are of the view that liberty should be granted to the appellants to file an appeal before the appellate authority and if such an appeal is filed, the appellate authority without going into the question of limitation shall decide the appeal on merits and in accordance with law after hearing the parties. We order accordingly.
4. In view of the Order now passed, application for impleadment has become infructuous and is disposed of as such.
5. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
6. There shall be no order as to costs.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. On perusal of the impugned order against which this appeal has been filed we find that the High Court had dismissed the Writ Petition on the ground that in view of the statutory remedy of appeal and of the highly disputed questions of fact which have been sought to be raised, the Writ Petition could not be entertained.
3. Without going into the merit of the case, we are of the view that liberty should be granted to the appellants to file an appeal before the appellate authority and if such an appeal is filed, the appellate authority without going into the question of limitation shall decide the appeal on merits and in accordance with law after hearing the parties. We order accordingly.
4. In view of the Order now passed, application for impleadment has become infructuous and is disposed of as such.
5. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
6. There shall be no order as to costs.
