Back
ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN, B. R. GAVAI
SJVNL – Appellant
Versus
CCC HIM JV – Respondent
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
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.
Consideration of an issue and its disposal as a preliminary issue is permissible only in limited cases, specifically issues relating to the jurisdiction of the court or a bar of the suit created by a....
Repeated applications under Order IX Rule 13 after dismissal are impermissible if previously affirmed by a higher court, reaffirming the limitation provisions under the Limitation Act.
Practice and Procedure - No error in decision of Trial Court to take up application under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC for hearing and disposal despite having already heard parties on application under Or....
The appeal filed under Order 43 Rule 1 does not countenance an appeal against the Order passed under Order 37 Rule 4 of CPC.
The court refrained from making observations on the merits to avoid prejudice and found that the appellants were not differently situated from the petitioners in a previous case, leading to the impug....
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
