- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Savithri Amma Seethamma v. Aratha Karthy And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
On March 30, 1982, Civil Revision Petition No. 766 of 1981, preferred by the 1st respondent, was heard by a learned Single Judge of the High Court and decided in the 1st respondent’s favor. The advocate engaged for the appellant did not appear at the hearing because he was engaged in another court. He learned of the decision only after the High Court had closed for summer vacation on April 7, 1982.
Upon learning of these events, the appellant’s advocate filed an application, supported by his own affidavit, seeking rehearing of the revision application. The learned Single Judge rejected this application on June 22, 1982, treating it as if it were a review application. The appellant then filed the present appeal with special leave obtained from this Court.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the appellant had “sufficient cause” for non-appearance at the hearing of the civil revision petition due to his advocate being engaged in another court.
- Whether the High Court should have allowed the application for rehearing by applying the principle underlying Order 41 Rule 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure, rather than treating the application as a review.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court found it clear on the record that the appellant could not appear at the hearing because his advocate was occupied in another court. This fact was expressly stated in the advocate’s affidavit supporting the rehearing application. On these facts and circumstances, the Court held that the appellant had “sufficient cause” for not being present at the hearing.
Given this finding of sufficient cause, the Court concluded that the learned Single Judge of the High Court ought to have allowed the application for rehearing and reheard the civil revision petition, applying the principle underlying Order 41 Rule 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The rejection of the rehearing application (treated as a review) was therefore unwarranted.
Holding and Implications
APPEAL ALLOWED; HIGH COURT ORDERS SET ASIDE; MATTER REMITTED FOR DISPOSAL ON MERITS
The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court’s orders dated March 30, 1982 and June 22, 1982, and remitted C.R.P. No. 766 of 1981 to the High Court for disposal on merits in accordance with law. It left it to the Chief Justice of the High Court to determine whether the matter should be posted before the same learned Judge or another learned Judge.
As to costs, the Court noted that the appellant had already deposited Rs 500, which the 1st respondent is at liberty to withdraw. In addition, the appellant must pay a further Rs 500 towards the costs of the present appeal, to be deposited in the High Court in C.R.P. No. 766 of 1981 within four weeks, and the 1st respondent may also withdraw this amount.
Implications: The immediate effect is that the civil revision petition will be reheard on the merits by the High Court. The opinion does not set out broader implications or establish a new precedent beyond the application of the principle underlying Order 41 Rule 21 CPC to the facts found.
Order
1. It appears that on March 30, 1982 when Civil Revision Petition No. 766 of 1981 preferred by the 1st respondent came to be heard by the learned Single Judge of the High Court, the advocate engaged on behalf of the appellant could not appear because he was engaged in another court and it was only later, after the court had closed for the summer vacation on April 7, 1982, that he came to know that the revision application had already been heard and decided in favour of the 1st respondent. The learned Advocate for the appellant, on coming to know what had happened, made an application supported by his own affidavit for rehearing of the revision application. This application was rejected by the learned Single Judge of the High Court treating it as if it were a review application. The order rejecting the application for rehearing was made on June 22, 1982. The appellant thereupon preferred the present appeal with special leave obtained from this Court.
2. Now it is obvious that the appellant could not appear at the hearing of the revision application preferred by the 1st respondent because the advocate engaged by him was occupied in another court and this fact was stated by the learned Advocate in the affidavit made by him in support of the application for rehearing. We are, therefore, of the view that on the facts and circumstances of the present case, the appellant had sufficient cause for not being present at the hearing of the revision application and the learned Single Judge of the High Court ought, in the circumstances, to have allowed the application and reheard the civil revision petition applying the principle underlying Order 41 Rule 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure. We accordingly allow the appeal, set aside the orders dated March 30, 1982 and June 22, 1982 passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court and remit the C.R.P No. 766 of 1981 to the High Court for disposal on merits in accordance with law. It will be for the Chief Justice of the High Court to consider whether the civil revision petition should be posted before the same learned Judge or before any other learned Judge of the High Court. The appellant has already deposited a sum of Rs 500 which the 1st respondent will be at liberty to withdraw and in addition to this amount of Rs 500 the appellant will pay to the 1st respondent a further sum of Rs 500 towards the costs of the present appeal. This additional amount of Rs 500 will be deposited in the High Court by the appellant in CRP No. 766 of 1981 within four weeks from today and the 1st Respondent will be at liberty to withdraw the same.
Alert