- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Kunwar Singh And Others v. Sri Thakurji Maharaj .
Factual and Procedural Background
The dispute reached the Supreme Court by way of an appeal against a High Court judgment and decree dated 10-02-1992. That High Court judgment, which had itself affirmed an earlier first-appellate decree of 03-12-1976, was pronounced almost seven years after the appeal had been heard and judgment reserved on 03-10-1985. The appellants, having lost in the High Court, approached the Supreme Court alleging procedural irregularities in the manner and timing of the pronouncement.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether a High Court judgment delivered nearly seven years after it was reserved—and allegedly without being listed for pronouncement in open court—should be set aside and the appeal remitted for fresh hearing to safeguard the interests of justice.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellants' Arguments
- The nearly seven-year delay between reserving and pronouncing judgment undermines confidence that the court fully appreciated the oral arguments made in 1985.
- The judgment was not notified for pronouncement in open court; the cause-list did not display the case on the date of delivery, amounting to a procedural irregularity.
Respondent's Arguments
The opinion does not record specific arguments advanced by the respondent.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court expressly refrained from laying down a general rule that delay alone invalidates a judgment. Instead, the Bench focused on the particular facts: an extraordinary lapse of nearly seven years and an unlisted pronouncement. These circumstances, in the Court’s view, created a legitimate apprehension that the parties’ submissions may not have been fully considered. To remove this doubt and promote the ends of justice, the Court decided that the matter should be reheard by the High Court. It therefore set aside the impugned judgment without examining the substantive merits of the appeal.
Holding and Implications
APPEAL ALLOWED; the High Court judgment and decree dated 10-02-1992 are set aside, and Appeal No. 2461 of 1976 is remitted to the High Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law.
Implications: Both parties must appear before the High Court on 20-05-1994 without need for fresh notice. The Chief Justice is requested to list the appeal immediately after the summer recess and dispose of it expeditiously. Pending the final decision, the appellants must deposit mesne profits at an enhanced rate of ₹8,000 per year (instead of ₹3,600) for all unpaid past periods and for the future. No costs were awarded. The ruling is procedural and sets no new substantive precedent.
Order
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 expeditiously.
8. In the meanwhile, subject to the final result of the appeal, the appellants shall, towards mesne profits, deposit at the rate of Rs 8000 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.
Alert