Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
M.M. SUNDRESH, S. ANANTHI, JJ.
Shaik Abdullah & Others - Appellant
Versus
The State, Rep. by The Secretary to Government, Chennai & Others - Respondent
W.A. (MD) No. 572 of 2021 & C.M.P. (MD) No. 2617 of 2021
Decided On : 17-03-2021
Writ Appeal - Interim Order - The court set aside the order of the learned Single Judge, remanded the matter back to the Single Judge, and directed the listing of the interim application and vacate stay application for further arguments.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants filed a Writ Appeal against the order of the learned Single Judge who vacated the interim order due to the appellants' Counsel not being inclined to argue the matter.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the learned Single Judge could have considered the request for adjournment made by the appellants' Counsel and set aside the order, remanding the matter back to the Single Judge for further arguments.
Issues: The issue was whether the learned Single Judge erred in vacating the interim order due to the appellants' Counsel not being inclined to argue the matter.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the specific instruction given by the Counsel on record to the Junior Counsel not to argue the matter, and the understanding of the predicament involved in the case.
Final Decision: The writ appeal was disposed of, the order of the learned Single Judge was set aside, and the matter was remanded back to the Single Judge for further arguments. No costs were awarded.
JUDGMENT :
M.M.Sundresh, J.
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent as against the order dated 10.02.2021 made in W.P.(MD)No.23153 of 2018.
1. This appeal has been filed by the appellants against the order of the learned Single Judge, who vacated the interim order on the premise that the learned Counsel for the appellants was not inclined to argue the matter.
2. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that there was some inconvenience on that date and that is the reason why the instructing Counsel made a request for adjournment.
3. The learned Counsel appearing for the contesting respondents submitted that the matter has been stalled by way of the interim order, as there is nothing on merits.
4. We are not inclined to go into the merits of the case. However, we find that the learned Single Judge could have considered the request made by the appellants' Counsel by granting a short accommodation. Since specific instruction has been given by the Counsel on record to the Junior Counsel, who represented, not to argue the matter, one could understand the predicament involved. This is a hotly contested case.
5. In such view of the matter, we are inclined to set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge, making it clear that there is no interim order as of today and therefore, the matter has to be argued at length before the learned Single Judge with respect to the interim application, as we are restoring the interim application and the vacate stay application. Accordingly, the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 10.02.2021 is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the learned Single Judge.
6. Registry is directed to list the interim application as well as the vacate stay application along with the main petition before the learned Single Judge, having roster, on 22.03.2021. The submission made by the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants that they would advance their arguments on 22.03.2021, without fail, stands recorded.
7. In fine, this writ appeal stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition stands closed.
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
