Back
2017 Supreme(SC) 1272
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DIPAK MISRA, ASHOK BHUSHAN, S. ABDUL NAZEER, JJ.
M. SIDDIQ (D) THR. LRS. - Appellants
VERSUS
MAHANT SURESH DAS AND ORS. ETC. - Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos.10866-10867 of 2010 WITH C.A. Nos.4768-4771 of 2011 (III-A) C.A. No.2636, 821, 4739, 4905-4908, 2215, 4740, 2894, 6965, 4192, 5498, 8096, 7226 of 2011 (III-A)
Decided on : 11-08-2017
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Mr. Huzefa Ahmadi, Sr. Adv., Mohd. Irshad Hanif, AOR, Mr. Muzahid Ahmad, Adv., Mr. Aarif Ali Khan, Adv., Mr. Adeel Siddiqui, Adv., Mr. Shyam Divan, Sr. Adv., Mr. Vikramjeet Banerjee, Sr. Adv., Mr. Nachiketa Joshi, Adv., Ms. Swaruparna, Adv., Mr. Anish Gupta, Adv., Mr. Rakesh Sinha, Adv., Mr. Udayaditya Banerjee, Adv., Mr. Ritwiz Rishabh, Adv., Mr. Abhishek Vasisht, Adv., Mr. P.V. Yogeswaran, AOR, Mr. R.C. Gubrele, AOR Mr. Shakil Ahmed Syed, AOR Mr. Hari Shankar Jain, Adv., Mr. Vishnu Shankar Jain, AOR, Indakerri M. Mairom, Adv., Mr. Sushil Kumar Jain, AOR, Mr. Ejaz Maqbool, AOR, Mr. Vikramjit Banerjee, Sr. Adv., Mr. Bhupender Yadav, Adv., Mr. S.S. Shamshery, Adv., Mr. D. Bharat Kumar, Adv., Ms. Babita Yadav, Adv., Mr. Bhakti Vardhan Singh, Adv., Ms. Swarupama Chaturvedi, Adv., Mr. Pranav Kumar Mohapatra, Adv., Mr. Amit Sharma, Adv., Ms. Ruchi Kohli, AOR
For the Respondents: Mr. Kapil Sibal, Sr. Adv., Dr. Rajeev Dhavan, Sr. Adv., Mr. Zafaryab Jilani, Adv., Mr. M. R. Shamshad, AORMr. Nizam Pasha, Adv., Mr. Zaki Ahmad Khan, Adv., Mr. Aditya Samaddar, Adv., Mr. Vivek K. Tankha, Sr. Adv., Mr. P.N. Mishra, Sr. Adv., Ms. Ranjana Agnihotri, Adv., Ms. Sangeeta Mandal, Adv., Ms. Mamta Tiwari, Adv., Ms. Swati Sinha, Adv.,for M/s Fox Mandal & Co. Mr. Anoop George Choudhary, Sr. Adv., Mr. Syed Shahid Hussain Rizvi, AOR Mr. Irshad Ahmad, AOR Mr. R. C. Gubrele, AOR, Mr. Mukesh Verma, Adv., Mr. Pawan Kumar Shukla, Adv., Mr. Jaswant Singh, Adv., Mr. Yash Pal Dhingra, AOR, Mr. Syed Shahid Hussain Rizvi, AOR, Mr. Shakil Ahmed Syed, AOR, Mr. S.K. Jain, Sr. Adv., Mr. R.L. Verma, Adv., Mr. Puneet Jain, Adv., Mr. Paramjeet Verma, Adv., Mr. Abhinav Gupta, Adv., Ms. Christi Jain, Adv., Ms. Priyal Jain, Adv., Mr. S.N. Sharma, Adv., Ms. Pratibha Jain, AOR, Mr. C.S. Vaidyanathan, Sr. Adv., Mr. Shyam Divan, Sr. Adv., Mr. Vikramjit Banerjee, Sr. Adv., Mr. Bhupender Yadav, Adv., Mr. S.S. Shamshery, Adv., Mr. D. Bharat Kumar, Adv., Mr. Bhakti Vardhan Singh, Adv., Ms. Swarupama Chaturvedi, Adv., Mr. P. V. Yogeswaran, AOR, Mr. A.K. Upadhyay, Adv., Mr. Bhuwan Jayant, Adv., Md. Shahid Anwar, AOR, Mr. Vivek K. Tankha, Sr. Adv., Mr. P.N. Mishra, Sr. Adv., Ms. Ranjana Agnihotri, Adv., Ms. Sangeeta Mandal, Adv., Ms. Mamta Tiwari, Adv., Ms. Swati Sinha, Adv., M/s Fox Mandal & Co., Mr. M. R. Shamshad, AOR, Mr. Dharmendra Kumar Sinha, AOR, Mr. B. Krishna Prasad, AOR, Mr. C.S. Vaidyanathan, Sr. Adv., Mr. Shyam Divan, Sr. Adv., Mr. Vikramjit Banerjee, Sr. Adv., Mr. Bhupender Yadav, Adv., Mr. S.S. Shamshery, Adv., Mr. D. Bharat Kumar, Adv., Mr. Bhakti Vardhan Singh, Adv., Mr. Anish Kumar Gupta, AOR, Mr. Atulesh Kumar, Adv., Mr. Nachiketa Joshi, Adv., Mr. Avdhesh Kumar Singh, Adv., Mr. Chandra Shekhar Suman, Adv., Mr. R.K. Rajwanshi, Adv., Mrs. Rita Gupta, Adv., Mr. Sanjay Kumar Visen, Adv., Mr. Rajendra Kumar Singh, Adv., Ms. Priyanka Parida, Adv., Ms. Deepshikha Bharati, Adv., Mr. Amit Pawan, AOR, Mr. M. C. Dhingra, AOR, Mr. Piyush Kant Roy, Adv., Mr. Gaurav Dhingra, Adv., Ms. Arna Das, Adv., Mr. Ajit Singh Pundir, AOR, Mr. Arijeet Singh, Adv., Mr. Bhupendra Kr. Bharadwaj, Adv., Mr. Fuzail Ahmad Ayyubi, AOR, Mr. B.K. Satija, AOR, Mohd. Irshad Hanif, AOR, Mr. Tushar Mehta, Sr. Adv., Mr. Raghwendra Singh, Adv., Gen., Mr. D.K. Singh, AAG Mr. Vinay Garg, Adv., Mr. Aviral Saxena, Adv., Ms. Komal Mudhra, Adv., Mr. Saurabh, Adv., Mr. Ravi Prakash Mehrotra, AOR, Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tyagi, Adv., Mr. Syed Mehdi Imam, Adv., Shamama Anis, Adv., Mr. Atif Suhrawardy, Adv., Mr. Tabrez Ahmed, Adv., Mr. Nauras Suhrawardy, Adv., Mr. V.N. Sinha, Sr. Adv., Mr. Jamshed Bey, Adv., Mr. R.S. Kumar, Adv., Mr. Purushottam Mulloli, Adv., Mr. Binay K. Das, Adv., Mr. Vijayendra Misra, Adv., Mr. Sanjay K. Lal Das, Adv., Ms. Priyanka Das, Adv., Ms. Ranjana Agnihotri, Adv., Mr. Nitin Singh, Adv., Mr. Vikas Singh, Sr. Adv., Mr. S.N. Jha, Sr. Adv., Mr. Chandra Prakash, Adv., Mr. L.R. Singh, Adv., Mr. Palok Basu, Sr. Adv., Mr. Manoj Swarup, Adv., Ms. Lalita Kohli, Adv., Mr. Shiv Ram Pandey, Adv.,
The court has the discretion to allow applications for substitution, set timelines for translation of exhibited documents, and grant liberty for paper publication.
Headnote:
Substitution - Service - Translation - Publication of Notice
Fact of the Case:
The court allowed applications for substitution and directed the appellants to serve copies on the substituted parties. It also granted liberty to carry out paper publication and allowed the prayer for deletion of any respondents. The court also addressed the issue of translation of exhibited documents and set timelines for the same.
Finding of the Court:
The court allowed the applications for substitution, granted liberty for paper publication, and addressed the issue of translation of exhibited documents by setting timelines for the same. It also allowed the prayer for deletion of respondents.
Issues: Substitution, Service, Translation, Publication of Notice, Deletion of Respondents
Ratio Decidendi: The court allowed the applications for substitution and directed the appellants to serve copies on the substituted parties. It also granted liberty for paper publication and addressed the issue of translation of exhibited documents by setting timelines for the same. The prayer for deletion of respondents was also allowed.
Final Decision: The court allowed the applications for substitution, granted liberty for paper publication, addressed the issue of translation of exhibited documents, and allowed the prayer for deletion of respondents.
Key Points from the Order
- The court allowed pending applications for substitution of legal representatives in place of original appellants or respondents. (!) [1000604960001]
- Copies of the order can be served on the counsel of already substituted legal representatives, treating it as valid service. (!) [1000604960001]
- Appellants must serve unserved respondents within two weeks, with dasti service permitted in addition. (!) [1000604960001]
- Liberty granted to carry out paper publication of notice after obtaining Registry approval; draft notice to be filed within two weeks, and publication in widely circulated Hindi and English newspapers in the relevant area within four weeks thereafter. (!) [1000604960002]
- Prayer for deletion of any respondents in any appeal is allowed. (!) [1000604960003]
- Parties (plaintiffs or defendants) directed to provide English translations of their respective exhibited documents. (!) [1000604960004]
- All parties granted twelve weeks to file English translations of exhibited documents; no adjournments permitted for this purpose. (!) [1000604960005]
- Learned senior counsel for the State of U.P. directed to file English translation of the entire oral evidence within ten weeks, in bound volumes provided to all counsel. (!) [1000604960006]
- Applications for intervention and impleadment to be considered at an appropriate time. (!) [1000604960007]
- Appeals listed for hearing on 5th December, 2017. (!) [1000604960008]
Subject Matter
Civil Law - Substitution and Service; Substitution; Service; Translation; Publication of Notice. [judgement_subject]
Issues Addressed
Substitution, Service, Translation, Publication of Notice, Deletion of Respondents. [judgement_subject]
ORDER :
1. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants/ plaintiffs and the respondents/defendants have submitted that certain applications for substitution are pending and some respondents have not yet been served. We have been apprised in the course of hearing that certain applications for substitution have been filed and in certain appeals the respondents are the appellants.
2. In view of the aforesaid, the legal representatives who have already been substituted in place of the original appellants or respondents, copies can be served on their respective counsel and that will be treated as service. As far as the applications for substitution are concerned, they are allowed. The appellants shall take steps to effect service within two weeks hence on the unserved respondents. Dasti, in addition, is permitted.
3. Apart from that, liberty is granted to carry out the paper publication after getting the draft notice approved from the Registry. The draft notice shall be filed within two weeks hence and the paper publication shall be done in widely circulated local newspapers published in Hindi and English language in the area concerned within four weeks therefrom.
4. The prayer for deletion of any respondents in any appeal stands allowed.
5. At this juncture, an issue arose with regard to translation of the exhibited documents. It is submitted by Mr. C.S. Vaidyanathan, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants in certain appeals that the High Court has produced the translation in the judgment of the exhibited documents. Learned senior counsel for the respondents would submit that all the exhibited documents have not been translated and, in any case, certain extracts have been produced in the judgment and not the entire exhibits. Without getting into the said controversy, we are inclined to direct that the plaintiffs or the defendants in the suits, shall translate their respective exhibits. Mr. Vaidyanathan has submitted that he will be in a position to translate the documents exhibited by the plaintiffs for whom he is appearing within four weeks from today. Mr. Kapil Sibal, Dr. Rajeev Dhawan, Mr. Anoop Chaudhary and Mr. Sushil Kumar Jain, learned senior counsel submit that they would require four months' time to translate the documents.
6. Regard being had to the complexity of the matter, we are inclined to grant twelve weeks to all concerned to file the English translation of the exhibited documents. It is hereby made clear that no adjournment shall be granted for the aforesaid purpose and both the parties shall be guided by the time frame fixed by us.
7. Mr. Tushar Mehta, learned senior counsel and Mr. Raghawendra Singh, learned Advocate General for the State of U.P. shall file the English translation of the entire oral evidence within ten weeks. Needless to say, copies of the translation shall be in bound volumes and shall be handed over to all the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
8. The applications for the intervention and impleadment shall be dealt with at the appropriate time.
9. Let these appeals be listed for hearing on 5th December, 2017.
