Miss Lucy
← All judgments

Ram Hari Mhatre vs Mahadeo Balu Mhatre &Amp Ors

Supreme Court24 September 2015Anil R. Dave · Adarsh Kumar Goel

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

Where a High Court has remitted a matter to the trial court for fresh evidence or retrial, the Supreme Court may, in the interests of justice and expedition, modify that order by directing instead that the matter be remitted to the First Appellate Court for the leading of evidence and determination of the appeal, particularly where the matter has been pending for a considerable length of time.

Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.

Judgment

As delivered

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7984 OF 2015 (Arising out of SLP(C)No.13094 of 2014)

RAM HARI MHATRE ... APPELLANT(S)

VS.

MAHADEO BALU MHATRE & ORS. ... RESPONDENT(S)

J U D G M E N T

ANIL R. DAVE, J.

1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2. Leave granted.

3. Looking at the facts of the case, in our opinion, it

would be just and appropriate to modify the impugned

judgment delivered by the High Court to the effect that

instead of remitting the matter to the trial court, it be

sent to the First Appellate Court and evidence, if any, be

led before the First Appellate Court.

4. The appeal is disposed of as allowed with no order as

Signature Not Verifiedto costs. Digitally signed by Sarita Purohit Date: 2015.10.01 17:09:47 IST Reason: 1

5. As the matter is pending for quite a long, we hope

that the First Appellate Court shall conclude the hearing

and decide the case at the earliest, preferably within six

months from the date of receipt of this order.

6. The parties shall remain present before the First

Appellate Court on 12th October, 2015.

..............J. [ANIL R. DAVE]

..............J. [ADARSH KUMAR GOEL] New Delhi;

24th September, 2015.

2 ITEM NO.44 COURT NO.3 SECTION IX

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). 13094/2014

(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 04&07/03/2014 in SA No.287/2010 with CA Nos.898/2012,1232/2012 & 286/2013 in SA No.287/2010 passed by the High Court Of Judicature at Bombay)

RAM HARI MHATRE Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

MAHADEO BALU MHATRE & ORS Respondent(s) (With interim relief and office report)

Date : 24/09/2015 This petition was called on for hearing today.

CORAM :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL R. DAVE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL

For Petitioner(s) Mr. Shekher Naphade,Sr.Adv.

Ms. Manisha T. Karia,Adv.

Mr. Shivam Mishra,Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. S.M. Jadhav,Adv.

Mr. Anish R. Shah,Adv.

For M/s. S.M. Jadhav & Company,Advs.

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R

Leave granted.

The appeal is disposed of as allowed with no order as to costs in terms of the signed Non-reportable judgment.

(Sarita Purohit) (Sneh Bala Mehra) Court Master Assistant Registrar

(Signed Non-reportable judgment is placed on the file)

3

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