Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
(AURANGABAD BENCH)
G.H. Guttal P.V. Nirgudkar, JJ.
Bhagwan s/o Ganpatrao Godsay.... Petitioner.
Versus
Kachrulal s/o Bastimal Samdariya.... Respondent.
AND
Raghunath s/o Dhondiba Lohar.... Petitioner.
Versus
Pandurangrao s/o Ambadasrao Ratnalikar.... Respondent.
AND
Sudhabai w/o Kishanrao Khatke another.... Petitioners.
Versus
Pandurangrao s/o Ambadasrao Ratnalikar.... Respondent.
AND
Rama s/o Balu Roopnar.... Petitioner.
Versus
Pandurangrao s/o Ambadasrao Ratnalikar.... Respondent.
Civil Revision Application Nos. 6, 8, 9 10 of 1986, decided on 23-1-87.
Advocates appeared :
D.B. Yavatekar, for petitioner in CRA No. 6 of 86.
S.N. Loya, for respondent in CRA 6 of 1986.
A.H. Vaishnav, for petitioners in C.R.Appl. Nos. 8 of 1986 to No. 10 of 1986.
Miss M.K. Pisolkar for P.R. Deshmukh, for respondents in C.R.Applic. No. 8 of 1986 to No. 10 of 1986.
Appeal lies to the District Judge, designated as appellate authority and not to the District Court. Appellate authority is constituted as adjudicating authority exercising the appellate jurisdiction over orders made by the Controller. For fulfilling the purpose of the Act, appellate authority vested in the District Judge has been created.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
The appellate authority under the relevant law is constituted as a Tribunal and not as a Civil Court, and the appeal lies to a designated District Judge, who acts as the appellate authority (!) .
The specific provisions of the law restrict the power of the appellate court to grant interim stay of execution of decrees until the application for condonation of delay is disposed of and the appeal is admitted (!) .
The scheme of the procedural rules mandates that applications for condonation of delay must be decided before the court deals with the appeal on its merits, and the court is generally required to dispose of such applications prior to proceeding with the appeal (!) (!) .
The prohibition against granting stay during the pendency of the application for condonation of delay is intended to prevent the execution of decrees in cases where the appeal might be barred by limitation, thereby ensuring that the question of limitation is settled before the appeal is admitted (!) (!) .
The language of the procedural rule, particularly the use of the word "shall," has been interpreted as permissive rather than mandatory, allowing courts some discretion to grant interim relief during the period when the application for condonation is pending (!) (!) .
The legislative history and the purpose behind the enactment of the procedural rule indicate that its primary aim is to regulate the process of admitting appeals and not to bar the court from granting interim relief, including stay orders, during the period before the appeal is admitted (!) (!) .
When interpreting procedural provisions, courts should adopt an approach that aligns with the legislative intent, avoiding an overly literal interpretation that could lead to unjust or absurd results (!) (!) .
The special law governing a particular matter, such as the law relating to rent control, generally prevails over the general procedural law unless explicitly stated otherwise. Therefore, the provisions of the special law allow for the grant of stay orders by the appellate authority, despite the restrictions in the general civil procedure rules (!) (!) .
The procedural rule was enacted to prevent the practice of admitting appeals without considering the question of limitation and to establish a process for final determination of limitation issues at the earliest stage, thereby protecting the rights of the parties involved (!) (!) .
The interpretation of the procedural rules should be guided by the broader objective of justice and fairness, allowing courts to exercise their inherent powers to prevent injustice, especially in cases where technicalities could cause undue hardship (!) .
The courts have recognized that procedural rules are meant to facilitate justice and should not be applied in a manner that results in the denial of substantive rights or causes irreparable harm to parties (!) (!) .
In conclusion, the procedural restrictions against granting stay orders during the pendency of applications for condonation of delay are not absolute and should be construed in a manner that upholds the overall purpose of justice, especially when the special law or circumstances warrant such relief (!) (!) .
Please let me know if you need a more detailed analysis or specific advice based on these points.
I Facts
(i) Civil Revision Application No. 6 of 1986
2. In this Revision Application, petitioner is the owner of house bearing Municipal No. 2/771 situated at Tilak Road, Beed. Respondent Kachrulal is the tenant. The petitioner filed eviction Suit No. 85/RC/8 under section 15 of the Hyderabad Rent Control Act, 1954 on the ground of non-payment of rent and acquisition of alternative accommodation. The eviction suit was allowed by order dated 7th November, 1985 and the respondent was ordered to vacate the premises within 30 days from the date of the order.
The defendant preferred appeal to the District Judge at Beed under section 25 of the Hyderabad Rent Control Act. He urged that notice of the proceedings before the Rent Controller was never served on him, and the order for substituted service was erroneously made. He came to know the order of eviction made ex parte on 14-12-1985 when he was served with the order of the Rent Controller through the Tahsildar, Beed. He preferred an appeal on 16-12-1985 which was within 30 days from the date of knowledge of the order of eviction. Thus, the appeal was not barred by law of limitation. With the appeal, the petitioner made separate applications for condonation of delay and stay of execution of the order. The applications were made out of abundant caution. The learned District Judge heard Counsel. The respondent urged that having regard to Order XLI, Rule 3-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Appellate Court cannot grant interim stay until the application for condonation of delay was disposed of and the appeal was admitted. The District Judge invoked the inherent powers of Civil Courts and stayed execution of the order of eviction pending decision of the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The petitioners has preferred this revision application against the order granting interim stay.
(ii) Civil Revision Application Nos. 8, 9 and 10 of 1986.
3. The Petitioners in these Civil Revision Applications were defendants in Regular Civil Suits Nos. 238 of 1984, 235 of 1984 and 237 of 1984 respectively in the Court of the learned Civil Judge, (Junior Division), Biloli, district Nanded. The suits were for possession of lands. The respondent was the plaintiff in each of these three suits. The petitioners-defendants engaged an Advocate to represent them. He did not file written statements. Eventually ex parte decrees for possession were made in the three suits. The three defendants then filed Regular Civil Appeals Nos. 51 of 1985, 52 of 1985 and 50 of 1985 respectively in the District Court at Nanded. The appeals were accompanied by applications for stay and applications for condonation of delay in filing the respective appeals. In all the three appeals the learned 2nd Additional District Judge, Nanded, by his orders dated 17th August, 1985 granted interim orders and stayed the execution of the decrees. But on hearing Counsel for both the parties he vacated the orders of stay. According to the learned 2nd Additional District Judge, Order XLI Rule 3-A prohibits grant of stay until the application for condonation of delay is disposed of. These orders which are impugned in the Civil Revision Applications were made on 2-1-1986.
II Questions for Consideration :
4. These Civil Revision Applications were heard by Ratnaparkhi, J., on February 28, 1986 but were not dispose
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
