The Supreme Court has criticized the High Court for deciding second appeals without allowing the parties a chance to present their case.
The Supreme Court criticized the High Court for making a decision on an appeal without allowing the party a chance to present their case. The Court accepted an appeal against the Bombay High Court’s ruling, which was made without notifying the Appellant. In 2022, the High Court’s Division Bench ruled that the sale deeds related to the property in question, executed by the Appellant, were invalid concerning 3/4th of the Respondent’s share. Justices B.R. Gavai and K.V. Viswanathan stated, “This appeal should be granted because the second appeal, where the current appellant was Respondent No.2, was decided without notifying the appellant.”
AOR Atul Babasaheb Dakh represented the Appellant, while Senior Advocate Sudhanshu Chaudhari represented the Respondents. Both parties contested the High Court’s judgment and decree from the Trial Court in their second appeal. The High Court’s Division Bench determined that “Parwatibai would receive a ¾ share of the property, while the adopted son Shivaji would receive a ¼ share. The sale deeds made by Shivaji in favor of the appellants do not affect the original plaintiff No. 2 regarding her ¾ share. However, the sale deeds are valid for Shivaji concerning his ¼ share.” The Appellant argued that the legal questions posed by the Trial Court were created during the order’s dictation, and the Appellant was not given a chance to be heard.
The Supreme Court referenced its ruling in Suresh Lataruji Ramteke v. Sau. Sumanbai Pandurang Petkar, which criticized the High Court’s actions. In this 2023 ruling, the Apex Court condemned the Bombay High Court for quickly reversing the decisions of two Civil Courts without properly hearing the involved parties or reviewing the Trial Court records. The Court in Suresh Lataruji Ramteke stated, “The speed with which the Court handled the appeal without giving a proper chance to present arguments is not acceptable. The relevant law stresses the importance of hearing all parties, as shown in various decisions by this Court. A Court’s method of handling such appeals must follow this principle.”
As a result, the Court annulled the contested order and sent the case back to the High Court for a fresh decision according to the law. “Since the appeal comes from a suit filed in 2009, we urge the High Court to resolve the appeal quickly, ideally within one year from today,” the Bench noted. Thus, the Supreme Court approved the Appeal.
Cause Title: Shivaji v. Parwatibai & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 917)
Appearance:
Appellant: AOR Atul Babasaheb Dakh; Advocates Diganta Gogoi, Bitu Kumar Singh and Praveen Kumar Pandey
Respondents: Senior Advocate Sudhanshu Chaudhari; Advocate Shreyas Gacche; AOR T.R.B. Sivakumar
