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

2021 Supreme(SC) 411

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN, B.R. GAVAI, JJ.
SJVNL - Appellant
VERSUS
M/S CCC HIM JV & ANR. - Respondent
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 494 OF 2021
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 287/2021)
Decided On : 12-02-2021.

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Tushar Mehta, SG, Mr. B. K. Satija, AOR, Mr. Kanu Agrawal, Adv.
For the Respondent: Mr. Jayant K. Mehta, Adv., Mr. Rudrajit Ghosh, Adv. Mr. Mahesh Thakur, AOR Ms. Vipasha Singh,Adv. Ms. Shailja Das, Adv

Order 20 of the CPC does not apply to the High Court, and the Supreme Court laid down guidelines for the High Court on reserving judgment.

Headnote:

Order 20 of the CPC - Setting aside judgment of the learned Single Judge - Guidelines for High Court on reserving judgment

Fact of the Case:

The Division Bench set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge due to the delay in delivering the judgment, citing Order 20 of the CPC. However, the Supreme Court clarified that Order 20 of the CPC does not apply to the High Court and laid down guidelines for the High Court on reserving judgment.

Finding of the Court:

The Division Bench order setting aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge was set aside. The Division Bench was directed to take up the hearing of the appeal afresh and decide the same on merits.

Issues: Interpretation of Order 20 of the CPC, applicability to the High Court, and guidelines for the High Court on reserving judgment.

Ratio Decidendi: Order 20 of the CPC does not apply to the High Court. Guidelines for the High Court on reserving judgment include a six-month hiatus between reserving a judgment and delivering it, and the option for either party to move an application to the Chief Justice of the High Court if the judgment is not delivered within the specified time.

Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the Division Bench was directed to take up the hearing of the appeal afresh and decide the same on merits.

ORDER :

1. Leave granted.

2. The Division Bench, by the impugned order dated 29.12.2020, has set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge on the short ground that since arguments were concluded on 24.12.2019 and judgment was delivered nine months later i.e. 30.09.2020, on application of Order 20 of the CPC, it must follow that the single Judge’s judgment be set aside and hearing conducted afresh. A reading of our judgment in Anil Rai vs. State of Bihar, (2001) 7 SCC 318 and, para 9 in particular, makes it clear that Order 20 of the CPC does not apply to the High Court. In fact, para 10 then goes on to lay down a series of guidelines which ought to be imposed for the High Court in which, inter alia, it is mentioned that only after six months hiatus between reserving a judgment and delivering it, either party can move an application to the Chief Justice of the High Court, who may then decide that the matter be heard afresh. No such application has been presented in the present case. As a matter of fact, an MA was presented by one of the parties after judgment was reserved to modify the status quo order, and an MA was moved by the other party so as to pass no orders as judgment is reserved.

3. This being the case, the Division Bench order is set aside. The Division Bench to take up the hearing of the appeal afresh and decide the same on merits.

4. The appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

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