SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2016 Supreme(SC) 1552

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ANIL R. DAVE, L. NAGESWARA RAO, JJ.
Sahadev Xaxa - Appellants
Versus
Jogesh Kumar Singh and Ors. - Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 7384, 7385-7386 of 2016
Decided On : 08-08-2016

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : Yashank Adhyaru, Shibashish Misra, Gopal Agarwal, Ashok Sahu, Kapil Sibal, Pitambar Acharya, Ashok Panigrahi, Surajit Bhaduri, Santosh Kumar
For the Respondents: Ramachandra Sarangi, Sanjeeb Panigrahi, Rabi Narayan Mohanty, Abhishek Tripathy, Upendra Kumar Samal

Timely disposal of Miscellaneous Applications and Election Petitions under the Civil Procedure Code is crucial, and the court can direct the High Court to adhere to specified timelines for disposal.

Headnote:

Civil Procedure Code - Election Petitions - Timely disposal of Miscellaneous Applications and Election Petitions

Fact of the Case:

The court found that the High Court should have finally decided the Miscellaneous Cases arising out of the Election Petitions, which were filed under 7, Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, without postponing the decision till the disposal of the Election Petitions.

Finding of the Court:

The court set aside the impugned orders and directed the High Court to decide the Miscellaneous Applications as soon as possible and preferably within two weeks, and the Election Petitions within six months from the date of disposal of the Miscellaneous Applications.

Issues: Timely disposal of Miscellaneous Applications and Election Petitions under the Civil Procedure Code

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of timely disposal of Miscellaneous Applications and Election Petitions filed under the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, and directed the High Court to adhere to the specified timelines.

Final Decision: The civil appeals were allowed, and no order as to costs was made.

JUDGMENT :

Anil R. Dave, J.

Civil Appeals arising out of SLP(C)Nos. 19936-19937/2016

Mr. Ashok Panigrahi, learned counsel appears on behalf of respondent No.1, who is a returned candidate, on caveat. Service of notice is waived by him on behalf of respondent No.1.

2. For the purpose of disposal of these appeals, it is not necessary to have presence of other respondents hence they are deleted, at the risk and responsibility of the appellant.

3. Heard the learned counsel.

4. Leave granted.

5. Upon hearing the learned counsel and upon perusal of the impugned order, in the peculiar facts of these cases, we are of the view that the High Court should have finally decided Miscellaneous Case Nos. 26 and 27 of 2016 arising out of Election Petition Nos. 20 and 17 of 2014 as these applications have been filed under 7, Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. In our opinion taking decision in the said applications ought not to have been postponed till the disposal of the Election Petitions.

6. In the circumstances, the impugned order dated 22nd June, 2016 passed in Miscellaneous Case Nos. 26 and 27 of 2016 in Election Petition Nos.20 and 17 of 2014 is set aside with a direction that the said applications shall be decided as soon as possible and preferably within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order by the High court. Needless to say that after the disposal of Miscellaneous Applications filed under 7, Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 the Election Petitions shall also be decided as soon as possible and within six months from the date of disposal of the above stated Miscellaneous Applications.

Civil Appeal arising out of SLP(C) No. 23226 of 2016

7. Mr. Sanjeeb Panigrahi, learned counsel appears on behalf of respondent No.1, who is Election Petitioner, on caveat. Service of notice is waived by him on behalf of respondent No.1.

8. For the purpose of disposal of this appeal, it is not necessary to have presence of other respondents hence they are deleted, at the risk and responsibility of the appellant.

9. Heard the learned counsel.

10. Leave granted.

11. Upon hearing the learned counsel and upon perusal of the impugned order, in the peculiar facts of the case, we are of the view that the High Court should have finally decided Miscellaneous Case No. 29 of 2016 arising out of Election Petition No. 17 of 2014 as the application has been filed under 7, Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. In our opinion taking decision in the said application ought not to have been postponed till the disposal of the Election Petition.

12. In the circumstances, the impugned order dated 12th July, 2016 passed in Miscellaneous Case No. 29 of 2016 in Election Petition No. 17 of 2014 is set aside with a direction that the said application shall be decided as soon as possible and preferably within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order by the High court. Needless to say that after the disposal of Miscellaneous Application filed under 7, Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 the Election Petition shall also be decided as soon as possible and within six months from the date of disposal of the above stated Miscellaneous Application.

13. In view of the above, the civil appeals stand disposed of as allowed with no order as to costs.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top