Shakuntalabai Derkar & Anr vs Maroti Dewaji Wadaskar & Ors
- SCC(2014) 1 SCC 602
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where a High Court judgment proceeds on the assumption that it is deciding a Second Appeal when the matter before it is actually a First Appeal, and the judgment fails to consider the submissions made by the parties and does not provide reasons for its conclusions, the judgment is not sustainable and must be set aside and remitted for fresh decision on the merits.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
CIVIL APPEAL NO.3958 OF 2013 [Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.31353 of 2009]
SHAKUNTALABAI & ANR. ...APPELLANTS
VERSUS
NANAJI DEWAJI WADASKAR ...RESPONDENT
ORDER
Delay condoned in application for restoration of special leave petition qua respondent Nos. 1 and 3.
For the reasons stated in the application, it is allowed and the special leave petition is restored qua respondent Nos. 1 and 3.
Leave granted.
The impugned order has been passed by the High Court assuming that the appeal before the High Court was a Second Appeal. This is patent from the judgment itself which mentions that the decision is rendered in Second Appeal No.339 of 2009.
It has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants that, in fact, the Court was seized only of the First Appeal. This submission of the learned counsel is borne out from the grounds of appeal submitted before the High Court which mention First Appeal No.339 of 2009.
...2/-
:2: A perusal of the judgment passed by the High Court shows that none of the submissions made by the appellants before the High Court have been considered. Furthermore, the judgment does not indicate the reasons for the conclusions recorded in the judgment.
In view of the above, the judgment of the High Court is not sustainable. The appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the High Court for a decision on merits after giving due opportunity of hearing to all the parties.
No costs.
....................,J.
(SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR)
....................,J.
(PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE) NEW DELHI APRIL 22, 2013
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