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

2008 Supreme(Raj) 2121

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Vineet Kothari, J.
Saraswati Devi (Smt.) & Anr. - Appellant
Versus
Madhu Singh & Ors. - Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3012 of 2008.
Decided On : 1-07-2008

Advocates:
For the Petitioners:N.K. Rastogi, Advocate
For the Respondents:J.K. Bhaiya , Advocate.
For the Respondents:Jitendra Chopra, Advocate.

Headnote:Constitution of India, 1950, Art. 227Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order 47 – Final decree was passed in a matter of partition. Objection petition was filed which was rejected ex – parte because of the non appearance of the petitioner. The petitioner contended that 31.8.07 was fixed as the actual date for hearing of the case but it was heard one day prior to it. There was confusion on the actual date as there was overwriting on the order sheet. It was stated that if overwriting appears then the clerk of the court needs to be careful in writing the next date. The high court set aside the impugned order as the petitioners were deprived of the opportunity to press objection.

JUDGMENT

1. - 1. Heard learned counsels.

2. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed against the orders dated 30.8.2007 and 26.3.2008 passed by the learned trial court in civil suit No.467/2004 wherein the learned trial court has rejected the objections filed by the present petitioners under Order 47 C.P.C. in the proceedings relating to final decree in a partition matter.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners Mr. N.K. Rastogi submits that on 9.8.2007 at 2:30 PM the learned trial court had fixed the next date for disposal of the case on 31.8.2007 whereas the said matter was taken on board and listed before the learned trial court on 30.8.2007 one day prior and since nobody appeared on behalf of the petitioners, the objections were over ruled ex-parte in presence of other counsels. He, therefore, submits that the present petitioners were deprived of pressing their objections before the learned trial court. He further submits that he filed a review application before the learned trial court which also came to be rejected on 26.3.2008 on the ground that the date fixed on 9.8.2007 was 30.8.2007 only and not 31.8.2007.

4. The learned counsel for the respondents opposed the submissions and has submitted that on 31.8.2007 there was a lawyer's strike day and, therefore, the matter was fixed on the date which was fixed by the learned trial court i.e. on 30.8.2007 only.

5. I have perused the record and from the certified copy of the order sheet Annex.11, it appears that on 9.8.2007 in the second part of the order sheet written on 2:30 PM the date fixed appears to be 31.8.2007 though there is slight over writing on a thin "0" as if "0" was made to appear as one. Though it was expected of the concerned clerk and Presiding Officer of the Court to have been very careful while writing the next date in the order sheet into brackets again if there was some overwriting and it is on account of such confusion only that it resulted in the impugned orders and ensuing litigation which has wasted so many man hours and time of this Court also. The learned trial Court is directed to be more conscious and meticulous about these matters in future.

6. Having heard learned counsels, this Court finds that the petitioner-objectors were deprived of their opportunity to press their objections in the matter and, therefore, the impugned orders dated 30.8.2007 and 26.3.2008 deserve to be set aside.

7. The writ petition is accordingly allowed and the matter is remitted back to the learned trial court for providing fresh opportunity of hearing to the petitioner-objectors. The parties may appear before the learned trial court tomorrow on 2nd July, 2008 as date is already said to be fixed there, when the learned trial court may hear the objections of the petitioners and decide the same in accordance with law. No costs.Petition allowed.

*******



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