1992 JTR(SC) 309
1997 2 AllCJ 1495 ; 1998 6 Scale 153 ; 1995 Supp4 SCC 655
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.M.Punchhi : S.C.Agrawal
Ramlal
Versus
Madan Gopal
Case No. : 1644 of 1992
Date of Decision : 4/9/92
A case cannot be decided solely on written arguments if the nature of the issues requires the efficacy of oral arguments, regardless of whether a bar strike prevented counsel from appearing.
Act
Referred
:CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE
: O.10 R.2
(A) Civil Procedure - Right to Oral Arguments - Decision based on written arguments due to bar strike - Efficacy of oral arguments - Where the nature of the issue is such that oral arguments are essential, deciding the case solely on written arguments is improper. (Para 2)
Facts of the case:
An appeal was decided by the lower court based on written arguments submitted by the parties because the members of the bar were on strike and abstained from appearing. The appellant was deprived of the opportunity to present oral arguments through counsel.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the issue involved in the case was of such a nature that the efficacy of oral arguments could not be underestimated.
Issues: Whether the decision of the lower court based solely on written arguments, necessitated by a bar strike, was sustainable given the importance of oral arguments for the specific issues involved.
Ratio Decidendi: The right to present oral arguments is crucial for the effective adjudication of certain legal issues, and a decision based solely on written arguments due to a strike of the bar may necessitate a rehearing to ensure justice.
Result: Impugned judgments set aside and the case remitted back to the lower court for rehearing after providing an opportunity for oral arguments, subject to payment of costs.
Facts of the case:
An appeal was decided by the lower court based on written arguments submitted by the parties because the members of the bar were on strike and abstained from appearing. The appellant was deprived of the opportunity to present oral arguments through counsel.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the issue involved in the case was of such a nature that the efficacy of oral arguments could not be underestimated.
Issues: Whether the decision of the lower court based solely on written arguments, necessitated by a bar strike, was sustainable given the importance of oral arguments for the specific issues involved.
Ratio Decidendi: The right to present oral arguments is crucial for the effective adjudication of certain legal issues, and a decision based solely on written arguments due to a strike of the bar may necessitate a rehearing to ensure justice.
Result: Impugned judgments set aside and the case remitted back to the lower court for rehearing after providing an opportunity for oral arguments, subject to payment of costs.
(1) SPECIAL leave granted.
(2) THE sole ground which impresses us is that the appellant did not have the advantage of pressing forth oral arguments through counsel before the Additional District Judge, Yamuna Nagar, hearing the appeal. The District Judge proceeded to decide the case on the basis of written arguments submitted by the parties. Oral arguments could not be advanced because there was a strike of the members of the bar who abstained from appearing in the court. It is perhaps for this reason that the District Judge thought that it was expedient to decide the case on the basis of written arguments. But in our view the issue involved in this case was such that the efficacy of oral arguments could not be underestimated.
(3) HAVING regard to the special facts and circumstances of the case we think it proper that the view of the Additional District Judge should be reobtained before his decision of fact becomes binding in second appeal before the High Court. For this reason we set aside the impugned judgment and order of the High court as also that of the Additional District Judge, Yamuna Nagar and remit the case back to the Additional District Judge for rehearing the appeal after giving opportunity to the parties counsel to address their arguments but subject to payment of Rs. 5,000.00 as costs. The Additional District Judge shall dispose of the appeal within a period of two months from today. Counsel for the parties are directed to appear before the Additional District Judge on 27/4/1992.