Full Text
Translation output
Page 1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.3958 OF 2013
[Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil)
No.31353 of 2009]
SHAKUNTALABAI & ANR. ...APPELLANTS
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
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
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
ORDER
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/-
Page 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
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/-
Page 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