SATYENDRA SINGH Vs. SAROJ RANI AND ORS.
EmailAppeal: CIVIL APPEAL NO.1643 OF 2012
Petitioner: SATYENDRA SINGH
Respondent: SAROJ RANI AND ORS.
Judges: KURIAN JOSEPH , ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN
Date of Judgment: Feb 22, 2016
JUDGEMENT:
NON- CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.1643 OF 2012 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 4522 of 2016
SATYENDRA SINGH APPELLANT VERSUS
SAROJ RANI AND ORS. RESPONDENTS
J U D G M E N T
KURIAN, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for Respondent No.1 The others are proforma respondents and it is not necessary to issue notice to them. 2. Leave granted. 3. The only grievance now before us is that even during the pendency of review application filed by the appellant before the High Court, the High Court is proceeding with contempt proceedings. 4. Having Heard the learned counsel for the respondents also, we feel that in the interest of justice, the High Court should dispose of the review application No. 82/2009 filed in Writ Petition No. 2889 (M/B) of 1992 within a period of one month from today. We also request the High Court to defer contempt proceedings against the appellant till the review application is disposed of. -2-
5. We make it clear that neither the pendency of the review application nor that of the contempt proceedings and this order shall stand in the way of the parties attempting for a settlement of the disputes between them. 6. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and it will be open to the parties to raise all available contentions before the High Court. 7. The appeal is disposed of with no order as to costs.
……………..J. [KURIAN JOSEPH]
………………..J. [ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN] NEW DELHI; FEBRUARY 22, 2016
CIVIL APPEAL NO.1643 OF 2012 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 4522 of 2016
SATYENDRA SINGH APPELLANT VERSUS
SAROJ RANI AND ORS. RESPONDENTS
J U D G M E N T
KURIAN, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for Respondent No.1 The others are proforma respondents and it is not necessary to issue notice to them. 2. Leave granted. 3. The only grievance now before us is that even during the pendency of review application filed by the appellant before the High Court, the High Court is proceeding with contempt proceedings. 4. Having Heard the learned counsel for the respondents also, we feel that in the interest of justice, the High Court should dispose of the review application No. 82/2009 filed in Writ Petition No. 2889 (M/B) of 1992 within a period of one month from today. We also request the High Court to defer contempt proceedings against the appellant till the review application is disposed of. -2-
5. We make it clear that neither the pendency of the review application nor that of the contempt proceedings and this order shall stand in the way of the parties attempting for a settlement of the disputes between them. 6. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and it will be open to the parties to raise all available contentions before the High Court. 7. The appeal is disposed of with no order as to costs.
……………..J. [KURIAN JOSEPH]
………………..J. [ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN] NEW DELHI; FEBRUARY 22, 2016
