1994 JTR(SC) 430
1995 Supp4 SCC 125
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.N.Venkatachaliah, C.J.I., A.S.Anand, J.
Kunwar Singh
Versus
Thakurji Maharaj
Case No. : 2498 of 1994
Date of Decision : 4/11/94
A significant delay in delivering a reserved judgment, combined with a failure to notify its pronouncement in open court, may necessitate a rehearing to ensure the ends of justice and proper appreciation of arguments.
Act
Referred
:CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE
: S.100
(A) Civil Procedure - Delivery of Judgment - Delay in pronouncement - Judgment reserved on 3/10/1985 and delivered on 10/2/1992 after a lapse of nearly seven years - Apprehension that arguments addressed years prior might not have been fully appreciated at the time of writing - Judgment not notified for pronouncement in open court - In such circumstances, ends of justice require that the matter be reheard by the High Court. (Paras 3, 4, 5)
Facts of the case:
An appeal was filed against a High Court judgment which affirmed a decree of reversal. The judgment of the High Court had been reserved for nearly seven years before being delivered. Furthermore, it was contended that the judgment was not notified for pronouncement in open court, as the cause-list for the day did not indicate the case was listed for judgment.
Findings of Court:
The court found that given the significant delay in delivering the judgment and the lack of notification for its pronouncement, the ends of justice would be served by remitting the matter back to the High Court for a fresh disposal.
Issues: Whether a significant delay in the delivery of a reserved judgment and the failure to notify its pronouncement in open court justify setting aside the judgment and ordering a rehearing.
Ratio Decidendi: While the court did not decide the broader legal question of whether delay alone invalidates a judgment, it held that in specific circumstances where a long delay is coupled with a lack of notification for pronouncement, a rehearing is necessary to ensure that the arguments are fully appreciated and justice is served.
Result: Appeal allowed; judgment and decree of the High Court set aside and remitted for fresh disposal.
Facts of the case:
An appeal was filed against a High Court judgment which affirmed a decree of reversal. The judgment of the High Court had been reserved for nearly seven years before being delivered. Furthermore, it was contended that the judgment was not notified for pronouncement in open court, as the cause-list for the day did not indicate the case was listed for judgment.
Findings of Court:
The court found that given the significant delay in delivering the judgment and the lack of notification for its pronouncement, the ends of justice would be served by remitting the matter back to the High Court for a fresh disposal.
Issues: Whether a significant delay in the delivery of a reserved judgment and the failure to notify its pronouncement in open court justify setting aside the judgment and ordering a rehearing.
Ratio Decidendi: While the court did not decide the broader legal question of whether delay alone invalidates a judgment, it held that in specific circumstances where a long delay is coupled with a lack of notification for pronouncement, a rehearing is necessary to ensure that the arguments are fully appreciated and justice is served.
Result: Appeal allowed; judgment and decree of the High Court set aside and remitted for fresh disposal.
(1) LEAVE granted.
(2) WE have heard Shri M.C. Bhandare, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants and Shri Satish Chandra, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent.
(3) IT is urged that the judgment and decree of the High court dated 10/2/1992 under appeal which, in turn, affirmed the decree of reversal of the first-appellate court dated 3/12/1976 requires to be set aside on ground alone that unfortunately the judgment which had been reserved on 3/10/1985 was rendered after the lapse of nearly seven years on 10/2/1992.
(4) WE do not propose to examine the larger question whether long delay, by itself, can as a matter of law affect the validity of the judgment. Appellants contention is that the appellants, who lost in the High court, should not have the apprehension that the arguments addressed seven years ago might not have come to be fully appreciated at the time of the writing of the judgment seven years later.
(5) THERE is yet another infirmity urged by the appellants. They contend that the judgment was not notified for pronouncement in the open court. They have appended to the memorandum of appeal the cause-list of the particular bench for the day indicating that the case was not listed for judgment that day. It is not necessary to pronounce finally on the contention. We are of the opinion that in the facts and the circumstances of this case ends of justice would require that the matter be reheard by the High court.
(6) ACCORDINGLY, this appeal is allowed; the judgment and decree of the High Court dated 10-2-1992 is set aside and Appeal No. 2461 of 1976 remitted to the High court for a fresh disposal in accordance with law.
(7) WE direct both the parties to enter appearance before the High court on 20/5/1994 without need for service of fresh notices to them on remand. We request the chief justice of the High court to list this second appeal before an appropriate bench immediately after reopening of courts after summer recess. We also request the High court to have the appeal disposed of most expeditiolisly.
(8) IN the meanwhile, subject to the final result of the appeal, the appellants shall, towards mesne profits, deposit at the rate of Rs. 8,000.00 per year in place of Rs 3600. The enhanced rate will apply to the years for which payment has not been made and for the future. 9. No order as to costs.