Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR AND PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, JJ.
SHAKUNTALABAI & ANR. - Appellants
VERSUS
NANAJI DEWAJI WADASKAR - Respondent
Civil Appeal No.3958 of 2013 [Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.31353 of 2009]
Decided on 22-4-2013.
Delay Condoned - Restoration of Special Leave Petition - Court sets aside High Court judgment and remands the matter for decision on merits
Fact of the Case:
The High Court passed an order assuming the appeal before it was a Second Appeal, while it was actually a First Appeal. The High Court did not consider the submissions made by the appellants and did not provide reasons for its conclusions.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the judgment of the High Court was not sustainable and set it aside. The matter was remanded back to the High Court for a decision on merits after giving due opportunity of hearing to all the parties.
Issues: Mischaracterization of the nature of the appeal before the High Court, failure to consider submissions, lack of reasons for conclusions in the judgment
Ratio Decidendi: The Court's decision was influenced by the mischaracterization of the nature of the appeal, failure to consider submissions, and lack of reasons for conclusions in the judgment, leading to the unsustainability of the High Court judgment.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, the impugned judgment of the High Court was set aside, and the matter was remanded back to the High Court for a decision on merits after giving due opportunity of hearing to all the parties.
ORDER
1. Delay condoned in application for restoration of special leave petition qua respondent Nos. 1 and 3.
2. For the reasons stated in the application, it is allowed and the special leave petition is restored qua respondent Nos. 1 and 3.
3. Leave granted.
4. The impugned order has been passed by the High Court assuming that the appeal before the High Court was a Second Appeal. This is patent from the judgment itself which mentions that the decision is rendered in Second Appeal No.339 of 2009.
5. It has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants that, in fact, the Court was seized only of the First Appeal. This submission of the learned counsel is borne out from the grounds of appeal submitted before the High Court which mention First Appeal No.339 of 2009.
6. A perusal of the judgment passed by the High Court shows that none of the submissions made by the appellants before the High Court have been considered. Furthermore, the judgment does not indicate the reasons for the conclusions recorded in the judgment.
7. In view of the above, the judgment of the High Court is not sustainable. The appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the High Court for a decision on merits after giving due opportunity of hearing to all the parties.
8. No costs.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
