1. Civil appeal disposed of by remanding to court concerned; special leave petition disposed of. (Para 4 )
Back
Next 
2014 Supreme(SC) 916
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Anil R. Dave, Vikramajit Sen, Pinaki Chandra Ghose, JJ.
PHOOL PATTI AND ANOTHER - Appellants
Versus
RAM SINGH (dead) through legal representatives AND ANOTHER - Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 1240 of 2005 with SLP (C) No. 30368 of 2010
Decided on : July 24, 2014
Important Points
The Court held that if no inconsistency exists between judgments referred to in a previous order, the matter should be remitted back to the concerned court to be decided on merits.
Subject
Civil Law - Procedural Law
Headnote
(A) Civil Procedure - Reference to inconsistency in judgments - In the absence of any inconsistency between the judgments referred to in a previous order, the matter is to be referred back to the concerned court for decision on merits. (Para 1-3)
Facts of the case:
A reference was made to the court regarding the consistency of certain judgments referred to in an order dated 31-3-2009. Counsel for the parties submitted that no inconsistency existed between the cited judgments.
Findings of Court:
The court, upon hearing the counsel and reviewing the materials, found that there was no inconsistency between the judgments referred to in the previous order.
Issues: Whether there exists any inconsistency among the referred judgments that necessitates the court's intervention before the appeal is decided on merits.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the court finds no inconsistency between the judgments referred to in a previous order, the appropriate course of action is to refer the matter back to the court concerned to ensure the appeal is decided on its merits.
Result: Civil appeal and special leave petition disposed of, and the matter referred back to the court concerned.
Facts of the case:
A reference was made to the court regarding the consistency of certain judgments referred to in an order dated 31-3-2009. Counsel for the parties submitted that no inconsistency existed between the cited judgments.
Findings of Court:
The court, upon hearing the counsel and reviewing the materials, found that there was no inconsistency between the judgments referred to in the previous order.
Issues: Whether there exists any inconsistency among the referred judgments that necessitates the court's intervention before the appeal is decided on merits.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the court finds no inconsistency between the judgments referred to in a previous order, the appropriate course of action is to refer the matter back to the court concerned to ensure the appeal is decided on its merits.
Result: Civil appeal and special leave petition disposed of, and the matter referred back to the court concerned.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
practice and procedure
-
civil procedure
- reference
- remand
- special leave petition (Para 4)
-
civil procedure
Table of Contents
Order
CA No. 1240 of 2005
We have heard the reference which has been made to this Court.
The learned counsel have submitted that there is no inconsistency in the judgments referred to in the order dated 31-3-2009. Upon hearing the learned counsel, we also do not find any inconsistency between the judgments. In view of the afore-stated circumstances, we refer the matter back to the court concerned so that the appeal can be decided on merits. The civil appeal is disposed of.
SLP (C) No. 30368 of 2010
4. The special leave petition is disposed of.
