1. Miscellaneous application seeking relief after a special leave petition was disposed of in the absence of respondents and without clarification regarding the nature of the impugned order. (Para 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 1452
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.V. NAGARATHNA AND SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, JJ.
Municipal Corporation Of Delhi - Appellant
Versus
The Action Committee Unaided And Another - Respondent
Miscellaneous Application No.42 of 2025 (@ D. No.48656 of 2024) with Interlocutory Application No. 248762 of 2024 (Application for Condonation of Delay) in Civil Appeal No. 4545 of 2024 (@ SLP (C) No.17978 of 2014)
Decided on : 06-01-2025
Important Points
The Court held that in the interest of justice, a disposed SLP challenging a Single Judge's order may be de-tagged, granting the appellant liberty to file a Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) before the High Court Division Bench, with a specified period for filing regardless of limitation.
Subject
Civil Law - Miscellaneous Applications
Headnote
(A) Supreme Court of India - Miscellaneous Application regarding delay condonation - In cases involving multiple orders from lower courts, it is critical for the appellant to inform the Supreme Court of all related orders and the status of the respondents' participation - The interest of justice favors allowing further appeals in light of prior non-participation by respondents and miscommunication from the appellant. (Paras 4, 6, 8)
(B) Appeal - Respondent's duty to participate in proceedings - While there is a responsibility on parties to respond to notices, it is also incumbent on the appellant to inform the court of any lapses by respondents. (Paras 5, 6)
Facts of the case:
This judgment concerns a delay condonation application filed by the respondents, who did not appear during earlier proceedings that affected the outcome, leading to claims that the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) failed to notify the court of this absence.
Findings of Court:
SLP
(C) No. 17978/2014 is de-tagged from previous cases and MCD is granted liberty to file a Letters Patent Appeal (LPA), which must be considered on its merits without limitation issues being raised.
Issues: The court addressed whether the MCD had sufficiently informed the court about the respondents' non-participation and the implications for the appeal process.
Ratio Decidendi: The Supreme Court established that both parties have responsibilities in litigation; the court’s action favors justice, enabling a fresh hearing in accordance with law.
Result: The miscellaneous application is disposed of, allowing for further appeals.
(B) Appeal - Respondent's duty to participate in proceedings - While there is a responsibility on parties to respond to notices, it is also incumbent on the appellant to inform the court of any lapses by respondents. (Paras 5, 6)
Facts of the case:
This judgment concerns a delay condonation application filed by the respondents, who did not appear during earlier proceedings that affected the outcome, leading to claims that the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) failed to notify the court of this absence.
Findings of Court:
SLP
(C) No. 17978/2014 is de-tagged from previous cases and MCD is granted liberty to file a Letters Patent Appeal (LPA), which must be considered on its merits without limitation issues being raised.
Issues: The court addressed whether the MCD had sufficiently informed the court about the respondents' non-participation and the implications for the appeal process.
Ratio Decidendi: The Supreme Court established that both parties have responsibilities in litigation; the court’s action favors justice, enabling a fresh hearing in accordance with law.
Result: The miscellaneous application is disposed of, allowing for further appeals.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Respondents contend the appellant failed to notify the court of their non-appearance and the nature of the challenge; appellant argues respondents failed to participate in final proceedings. (Para 4 , 5 )
3. The court observes that the interest of justice is served by de-tagging the specific petition from the disposed batch to allow the appellant to seek a proper remedy. (Para 6 )
4. In the interest of justice, a petition disposed of without hearing a party may be de-tagged to allow the filing of an appropriate appeal before the lower court. (Para 6 )
5. Delay condoned; petition de-tagged and disposed of with liberty to file a Letters Patent Appeal within 90 days, with directions that limitation shall not be raised. (Para 1 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 )
6. What is the remedy when a petition is disposed of without hearing a party due to procedural lapses?
The court may, in the interest of justice, de-tag the petition from the disposed batch and grant liberty to the parties to pursue the appropriate remedy, such as filing a Letters Patent Appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court. (Para 6 )
7. Can a court grant liberty to file a Letters Patent Appeal after a special leave petition is disposed of?
Yes, the court can dispose of a special leave petition with liberty to the party to file a Letters Patent Appeal against the impugned order before the Division Bench of the High Court. (Para 6 )
8. Can the court ensure that a party is not penalized for limitation when granting liberty to file a subsequent appeal?
Yes, the court can direct that the issue of limitation shall not be raised by the lower court if the appeal is filed within a specific timeframe granted by the court. (Para 6 )
ORDER :
1. Delay condoned.
2. This miscellaneous application has been filed by the respondent(s) in C.A. No.4545/2024 (@ SLP (C) No.17978/2014) by contending that they did not appear before this Court in the said matter which was disposed of by this Court on 21.03.2024.
3. Further, the appellant/Municipal Corporation Of Delhi (MCD) also did not bring to the notice of this Court that the respondent(s) in the said special leave petition had not appeared in the matter and further the said special leave petition was filed as against the order of learned Single Judge dated 29.11.2012 directly before this Court.
4. Learned senior counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that there was a fault on the part of the respondent(s) in not responding to the notice(s) issued by this Court and not participating in the said proceeding. However, there was a duty cast on the appellant(s) to have brought to the notice of this Court that the batch of cases comprised of not only a challenge of the order dated 23.08.2012 passed by the Division Bench of the High Curt but also to the order dated 29.11.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge against which SLP (C) No.17978/2014 was directly filed before this Court. Consequently, in the absence of the respondent(s) being heard of in the matter, Civil Appeal No.149/2013 and connected cases were disposed of. Hence, learned senior counsel submitted that appropriate orders may be made on the said application.
5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the MCD strongly and vehemently opposed the said application by contending that the applicant(s) herein may have earlier appeared in the matter but he/they did not participate in the proceedings when the matter was being finally heard and when the order was dictated in the open Court. Also, they did not bring to the notice of this Court that the challenge in SLP (C) No.17978/2014 was to the order of the learned Single Judge. In the circumstances, she contended that there is no merit in this application and the same may be dismissed.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties, we find that the interest of justice would be served by deleting and de-tagging SLP (C) No.17978/2014 from the cases which were disposed of by this Court on 21.03.2024. Consequently, SLP (C) No.17978/2014 is being disposed of with liberty to the MCD to file Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) against the order of learned Single Judge impugned in that special leave petition before the Division Bench of the High Court. If the LPA is filed within a period of 90 days from today, the issue of limitation shall not be raised by the Division Bench of the High Court.
7. It is needless to observe that the Division Bench shall hear the LPA to be filed by the MCD on its own merits and in accordance with law.
8. All contentions on both sides are left open to be advanced before the Division Bench of the High Court.
9. The Miscellaneous Application stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
10. Consequently, the application for impleadment/intervention filed by Apeejay School stands disposed of as it does not call for any orders from this Court.
