Abdul Latif vs Abdul Hamid And Anr.

2. Upon hearing the submissions made on behalf of the parties and having regard to the notices issued, we do feel it inclined not to record our concurrence with the judgment of the High Court

3. Before, however, dealing with the matter any further, we wish to place on record our displeasure in the matter by reason of the suppression of material facts in the petition before the apex court under Article 136 of the Constitution. The petitions are totally silent as regards the filing of the second review petition before the High Court.

4. We feel it necessary to record that in filing the petitions before this Court, it is the duty incumbent and obligation upon the advocate to place on record, the entire set of facts faithfully and without any concoction therein. Suppression of the filing of the second review petition cannot but be said to be suppression of material facts and on this score alone, the appeals are liable to be rejected and thus, we find some force in the contention of the respondents herein appearing in terms of the notices issued by this Court earlier that the appeals are liable to be dismissed But since the justice delivery system of this country does not deprive of anybody to receive the justice on the ground of technicalities alone and on account of the fact that justice-oriented approach in this system is the hall-mark, we desist from dismissing these appeals on this ground alone.

5. Turning attention on to the impugned judgment, it appears that the statutory provisions have not been properly dealt with and thus cannot be sustained. We, however, in the interest of justice do feel it expedient to dispose of these appeals in the manner following:-

(i) The orders impugned before this Court stand set aside and quashed.

(ii) The appeals stand remanded to the High Court of judicature at Allahabad, (Lucknow bench), for being dealt with in accordance with law upon framing of a substantial question of law in terms of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The High Court would do well to deal with the matter expeditiously.

(iii) As noticed above that there was suppression of facts and since we have, for the sake of the concept of justice, given a go-bye to such a technicality in our view, the appellant herein ought to be saddled with some costs and as such, these appeals are allowed upon, however, payment of costs assessed at Rs. 2,500/-to be paid by the appellant to the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee within a period of four weeks from the date hereof.