1986 JTR(SC) 453
1987 1 Scale 249 ; 1987 Supp SCC 249 ; 1952 SCR 1020 ; 1987 2 SCR 179 ; 1987 1 UJ 621
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
E.S.Venkataramiah : M.M.Dutt
Krishna Vasudev Baliga
Versus
Kusum Murthy
Case No. : 3829 of 1986
Date of Decision : 11/13/86
Advocates Appeared: Dutt Sushil : Narula Rajiv : Parekh P.H. : Sorabjee Soli J.
Act
Referred
:CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE : S.115
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA : Art.226
Civil Procedure Code - S. 115 - Constitution of India - Article 226 – Jurisdiction – Condo nation of delay - WE are told that respondents 1 and 2 having given an undertaking before City Civil court Bombay to vacate the premises by 9/09/1986 have filed a petition before the High court under Article 226 of the Constitution read with S. 115 of the Civil Procedure Code. Respondents 1 and 2, in the circumstances, should be called upon by the High court to state before it whether they would like to continue the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution or S. 115 of the Civil Procedure Code – Held, Petitioners are at liberty to make a fresh application before the High court to reconsider the question of interim stay which has been made by the High court. We feel that, in any event, the main case itself should be disposed of as expeditiously as possible but not later than three months, since it is stated that the petition is filed notwithstanding the undertaking given by the respondents. The petitioner shall file an application before the High court bringing to its notice the order passed by us for appropriate directions with regard to the election regarding the remedy as well as the actual date of hearing. We express no opinion on the merits of the case. Subject to the above observations – Petition dismissed
Civil Procedure Code - S. 115 - Constitution of India - Article 226 – Jurisdiction – Condo nation of delay - WE are told that respondents 1 and 2 having given an undertaking before City Civil court Bombay to vacate the premises by 9/09/1986 have filed a petition before the High court under Article 226 of the Constitution read with S. 115 of the Civil Procedure Code. Respondents 1 and 2, in the circumstances, should be called upon by the High court to state before it whether they would like to continue the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution or S. 115 of the Civil Procedure Code – Held, Petitioners are at liberty to make a fresh application before the High court to reconsider the question of interim stay which has been made by the High court. We feel that, in any event, the main case itself should be disposed of as expeditiously as possible but not later than three months, since it is stated that the petition is filed notwithstanding the undertaking given by the respondents. The petitioner shall file an application before the High court bringing to its notice the order passed by us for appropriate directions with regard to the election regarding the remedy as well as the actual date of hearing. We express no opinion on the merits of the case. Subject to the above observations – Petition dismissed
P.H.Parekh, RAJIV NARULA, SOLI J.SORABJI, SUSHIL DUTT SAGVAN
E.S.VENKATARAMIAH,J.
(1) WE are told that respondents 1 and 2 having given an undertaking before City Civil court Bombay to vacate the premises by 9/09/1986 have filed a petition before the High court under Article 226 of the Constitution read with S. 115 of the Civil Procedure Code. Respondents 1 and 2, in the circumstances, should be called upon by the High court to state before it whether they would like to continue the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution or S. 115 of the Civil Procedure Code. Petitioners are at liberty to make a fresh application before the High court to reconsider the question of interim stay which has been made by the High court. We feel that, in any event, the main case itself should be disposed of as expeditiously as possible but not later than three months, since it is stated that the petition is filed notwithstanding the undertaking given by the respondents. The petitioner shall file an application before the High court bringing to its notice the order passed by us for appropriate directions with regard to the election regarding the remedy as well as the actual date of hearing. We express no opinion on the merits of the case. Subject to the above observations, the special leave petition is dismissed.