M/S Babu Ram Ashok Kumar vs Mushtaq Ali
- SCC(2017) 11 SCC 497
- Neutral2016 INSC 469
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where an application for restoration of a review application has been dismissed on the ground that the applicant failed to prosecute the case diligently, but the review application itself was filed on time, the High Court should reconsider the review application on its merits rather than dismiss it solely for lack of diligent prosecution, particularly where the Supreme Court finds that the review application deserves consideration on merits.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
M/S BABU RAM ASHOK KUMAR Appellant(s)
VERSUS
MUSHTAQ ALI AND ORS Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
KURIAN, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The apepllant apparantly is aggrieved since the application for restoration of the review of the Judgment dated 28.11.2013 in RSA No. 287 of 1986 on the file of Punjab and Haryana High Court was dismissed.
3. There is no dispute that the review application had been filed on time. It appears from the order dismissing the application for restoration that the applicant had not been prosecuting the case diligently.
4. Having gone through the application and having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the review application deserves to be considered on merits.
5. In that view of the matter, we refrain from making any further observation on the merits of the 2 case. Therefore, we set aside the order dated 04.09.2014 in CM No. 9394-C of 2014 in RA No. 15-C of 2014 in RSA No. 287 of 1986 and restore the review application to its original file. The matter is remitted to the High Court for consideration of the review application on merits.
6. We direct the parties to appear before the High Court on 01.08.2016. In case the review petitioner does not appear before the High Court on that date, the review application shall stand dismissed.
7. Needless to say that it will be open to the parties to raise all available contentions before the High Court. The status quo order passed by this Court on 06.01.2015 regarding possession shall continue till the matter is disposed of by the High Court.
8. With the above observations and directions, the appeals are disposed of.
No costs.
.......................J.
[ KURIAN JOSEPH ]
.......................J.
[ ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN ]
New Delhi;
JUNE 29, 2016.
3
ITEM NO.56 COURT NO.11 SECTION IVB
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 994-995/2015 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 04/09/2014 in CM No. 9394/2014 28/11/2013 in RSA No. 287/1986 passed by the High Court Of Punjab & Haryana At Chandigarh)
M/S BABU RAM ASHOK KUMAR Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
MUSHTAQ ALI AND ORS Respondent(s)
(with interim relief and office report)
Date : 29/06/2016 These petitions were called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN
For Petitioner(s) Mr. S. Gurukrishna Kumar, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Hariharan, Adv.
Mr. Vikash Singh, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Dinesh Verma, Adv.
Mr. Rajat Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Subhasish Bhowmick, Adv.
UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Leave granted.
The civil appeals are disposed of in terms of the signed non-reportable Judgment.
Pending interlocutory applications, if any, are disposed of.
(Jayant Kumar Arora) (Chander Bala)
Sr. P.A. Court Master (Signed non-reportable Judgment is placed on the file)
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free