IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R.Subramanian, S.K.Govindarajan Thilakavadi, JJ.
B.Vivekanandan - Petitioner
Versus
J.Janorious Fausta and ors. – Respondents
Review Application No.8 of 2020
Decided On : 01-03-2023
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order 9, Rule 13 - Sole ground, on which, review is sought for is that review applicant was not served notice in Writ Appeal and Writ Appeal came to be allowed without hearing him - While entertaining review, a Division Bench had passed order - Held, Registry has filed a report pursuant to said order, which shows that complaint of applicant in Review Application is correct and no notice was served on him in Writ Appeal, when Writ Appeal came to be disposed of by Division Bench - Once it is conceded that notice was not served on one of respondents, order, which reverses order of Writ Court has to be necessarily re-called - Next question that would arise is whether order could be re-called only in respect of petitioner or in its entirety - Since it is a matter concerning seniority of a bunch of persons, who were appointed as a Sub-Inspector (Technical) in Police force in same recruitment, recalling order in respect of one person alone would not be a correct resolution - Proviso to Order 9, Rule 13 of Code envisages such situation and empowers Court to re-call entire decree - Writ Appeal being an appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, Proviso to Order 9, Rule 13 of Code of Civil Procedure will apply - Review Application allowed.
ORDER :
Prayer: Review Petition filed under Order 47 Rule 1 r/w. Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 05.12.2019 in W.A.No.1448 of 2018.
The sole ground, on which, review is sought for is that the review applicant was not served notice in the Writ Appeal and the Writ Appeal came to be allowed without hearing him. While entertaining the review, a Division Bench had passed the following the order on 05.01.2022 :-
2. A perusal of the judgment shows representation of few respondents. But to ascertain whether notices were issued and served on all the respondents in the writ appeal, the Registry is directed to place the records of the writ appeal. The Registry is further directed to prepare a note as to whether notice was issued on respondents and they were served before the date of hearing of the appeal.
3. Let these review applications be listed on 02.02.2022 for compliance of the direction given above.”
2. The Registry has filed a report pursuant to the said order, which shows that the complaint of the applicant in Review Application No.8 of 2020 is correct and no notice was served on him in the Writ Appeal, when the Writ Appeal came to be disposed of by the Division Bench. Once it is conceded that notice was not served on one of the respondents, the order, which reverses the order of the Writ Court has to be necessarily re-called.
3.The next question that would arise is whether the order could be re-called only in respect of the petitioner or in its entirety. Since it is a matter concerning seniority of a bunch of persons, who were appointed as a Sub-Inspector (Technical) in the Police force in the same recruitment, recalling the order in respect of one person alone would not be a correct resolution. Proviso to Order 9, Rule 13 of the Code envisages such situation and empowers the Court to re-call the entire decree. A Writ Appeal being an appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, Proviso to Order 9, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure will apply. Hence, exercising the power under Proviso to Rule 13 of Order 9, we re-call the entire judgment made in the Writ Appeal No. 1448 of 2018 dated 05.12.2019.
4.In view of the above, this Review Application stands allowed.
Procedural due process requires that all parties receive proper notice before a judgment is issued.
Importance of providing notice and opportunity to all parties involved in a case before passing an order.
Review proceedings under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC are strictly limited to correcting apparent errors and do not allow for a re-evaluation of the merits of the case.
Procedural fairness mandates issuance of notice before adverse administrative decisions.
Non-communication of final orders causing prejudice to the rights of the review petitioner is a ground for review of the court's order.
The lack of notice to the petitioner before the impugned order is a violation of the principle of natural justice, warranting annulment of the decision.
Review jurisdiction cannot be invoked to permit a re-hearing of a case on facts when the findings regarding service of notice were already established based on official records.
Failure to provide notice to parties may result in procedural errors necessitating correction to uphold fair process.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.