Shivaji vs Parwatibai
- Neutral2024 INSC 917
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
A second appeal decided by the High Court without notice to one of the parties must be set aside and remitted for fresh decision, as the absence of notice vitiates the proceedings and denies that party their right to be heard. The framing of questions of law by the Trial Judge during dictation of the order, without affording the affected party an opportunity to be heard, constitutes a procedural defect that renders the decision vulnerable to challenge and remand.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
NON-REPORTABLE
2024 INSC 917 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). @ SLP(C) No.12996/2022
SHIVAJI APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
PARWATIBAI & ORS. RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
B.R. GAVAI, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal deserves to be allowed on the short ground that the second appeal, wherein the present appellant was Respondent No.2, was decided even without giving notice to the appellant herein.
3. Shri Atul Babasaheb Dakh, learned counsel further submits that even the questions of law which were framed by the learned Trial Judge were framed during the dictation of the order and the appellant herein did not have an opportunity of being heard.
4. Such a practice by the High Court is deprecated by a recent judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Suresh Lataruji Ramteke v. Sau. Sumanbai Pandurang Petkar and Others, reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1210.
1
5. The impugned order is, therefore, set aside and the matter is remitted back to the High Court for deciding it afresh in accordance with law.
6. Since the appeal arises out of a suit filed in the year 2009, we request the High Court to decide the appeal expeditiously, preferably within a period of one year from today.
7. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed.
8. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
..............................J
( B.R. GAVAI )
..............................J
( K.V. VISWANATHAN )
NEW DELHI;
NOVEMBER 26, 2024
2
ITEM NO.9 COURT NO.2 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). 12996/2022 [Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 07-04-2022 in SA No. 515/2021 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay at Aurangabad]
SHIVAJI Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
PARWATIBAI & ORS. Respondent(s)
(IA No. 103195/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT, IA No. 103197/2022 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)
Date : 26-11-2024 This matter was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.R. GAVAI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.V. VISWANATHAN
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Atul Babasaheb Dakh, AOR
Mr. Diganta Gogoi, Adv.
Mr. Bitu Kumar Singh, Adv.
Mr. Praveen Kumar Pandey, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Sudhanshu Chaudhari, Sr. Adv.
Mr. T. R. B. Sivakumar, AOR
Mr. Shreyas Gacche, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. The appeal is allowed, in terms of the signed judgment.
(NARENDRA PRASAD) (ANU BHALLA)
DEPUTY REGISTRAR COURT MASTER
(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