Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Najbun Nisa @ Najmul Nisa vs Masrool Alam on 4 February, 2014
J*
ITEM NO.2 Court No. 6 SECTION XVI
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 (Civil) No(s).11502/2012
(From the judgement and order dated 05/05/2011 in CWJC No.3065/2011 of The
HIGH COURT OF PATNA)
NAJBUN NISA @ NAJMUL NISA Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
MASROOL ALAM Respondent(s)
(With prayer for interim relief and office report )
Date: 04/02/2014 This Petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE T.S. THAKUR
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.NAGAPPAN
For Petitioner(s) Mr. S.B.Sanyal, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Subhro Sanyal,Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Imtiaz Ahmed, Adv.
Ms. Naghma Imtiaz, Adv.
M/S.Equity Lex Associates,Adv.
UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Leave granted.
The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order.
|(Shashi Sareen) | |(Veena Khera) | |Court Master | |Court Master | (Signed order is placed on the file) IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No. 1823 OF 2014 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 11502 of 2012) |NAJBUN NISA @ NAJMUL NISA |...| Appellant(s) | | Versus | |MASROOL ALAM |...| Respondent(s) | O R D E R Leave granted.
The High Court has by a short order impugned in the present appeal dismissed CWJC No. 3065 of 2011. The order reads as under:
Upon hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and on going through the record, I find no merit in the petition. The petition is dismissed.
It is evident from the above that the High Court has neither formulated the points urged on behalf of the appellant nor dealt with the same howsoever briefly. Learned counsel for the respondent argued that the appellant had misrepresented and concealed the facts which disentitled the appellant to relief prayed for by her before the High Court. That assertion is stoutly denied by Mr. S.B.Sanyal, learned senior counsel for the appellant who submits that the least which the High Court was expected to do was to disclose proper application of mind while disposing of the matter. In the absence of reasons supporting the view taken by the High Court, it is difficult to say that there was any such application of mind argued Mr. Sanyal. Reliance was placed by Mr. Sanyal upon the decision of this Court in MMRDA Officers Association Kedarnath Rao Ghorpade Vs. Mumbai Metropolitan Regional Development Authority and Anr. 2005 (2)SCC 235. It was also contended by Mr. Sanyal that the Executing Court had erroneously disposed of the petition filed under Order 21 Rule 97, CPC at the stage of admission. Even though in terms of Order 21 Rule 10, CPC such a petition was to be tried and disposed of as a suit. The High Court has according to the learned counsel for the respondent failed to take notice of this aspect and fallen in error in summarily dismissing the petition. We do not consider it necessary to go into the merits of the contentions that are open to learned counsel for the parties before the High Court. All that we need say is that although it was a revision petition that was filed by the appellant, the High Court could have while taking a view one way or the other briefly set out the reasons why it was not inclined to interfere. Inasmuch as the High Court did not do so, we are left with no option except to set aside the order and remand the matter back to the High Court.
We accordingly allow this appeal, set aside the order passed by the High court and remand the matter back to the High Court with a request to hear and dispose of the matter afresh in accordance with law.
Since the matter is fairly old, the High Court may make an endeavour to dispose of the matter as early as possible preferably within a period of six months from today.
The parties are directed to appear before the High Court through their counsel on 10.03.2014.
......................J. (T.S.THAKUR) ......................J. (C.NAGAPPAN) New Delhi, February 04, 2014.