Allowed

Hansraj Mishrimal Jain (Decd.)by Lrs. - Kanuyabai Hansraj Jain and Ors. v. Dr. Yeshwant G. Bodhe

Bombay HC13 Aug 2010RPW/50/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A single-judge bench revisited the power of a High Court to quash an order passed in the absence of a party. The court held that where a final order reversed a writ petition without hearing the landlord, principles of natural justice necessitated allowing the review petition to re-hear the merits.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 13th July, 2005 was revoked, and the Writ Petition was listed for re-hearing.

Hansraj Mishrimal Jain (Decd.)by Lrs… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2010)

¶1

rpw50.10.sxw

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

REVIEW PETITION NO. 50 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 2223 OF 1992

¶5

Shri Hansraj Mishrimal Jain, Since deceased by his heirs and legal representatives & Ors.

¶6

....Petitioners.

¶7

Vs.

¶8

Dr. Yeshwant G. Bodhe

¶9

....Respondent.

¶10

Mr. Nitin Jamdar for the Petitioner. Mr. S.N. Chandrachud for the Respondent.

¶11

CORAM : ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.

¶12

P.C.:

¶13

1 The present Review Petition is filed by the Petitioners, originalLandlords-Respondents as, by impugned order dated 13^th July, 2005 Writ Petition No. 2223 of 1992, filed by the Respondent-original Defendant/tenant, was allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b) by giving detailed reasonings. The decision is reversed. There is no dispute that the Petitioners, Original Plaintiffs/Landlords, and their advocate, were

¶14

absent. Therefore, the order was passed without hearing the Petitioners/Respondents in all aspect. After condoning the delay, the

¶15

rpw50.10.sxw

¶16

¶17

Review Petition is listed today for hearing as it was already admitted on 24/02/2010.

¶18

2 The learned counsel appearing for the Respondent has strongly relied on various authorities of the Supreme Court as well as of other High Court, revolving around Order -47 Rule-1 and Order-11, Rule-1, of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, CPC) dealing with the aspect of scope and power of the Court to review or recall its order. Those are:-

¶19

1 Northern India Caterers India Limited Vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi, 1980 AIR (SC) 674 = 1980 (2) SCC 167,

¶20

2 Delhi Administration Vs. Gurdip Singh Uban, 2000 AIR (SC) 3737 = 2000 (7) SCC 296,

¶21

3 Sudin R. Karpe Vs. State of Goa, 2001 (10) JT 424,

¶22

4 Rupa Ashok Hurra : Birla Textiles Vs. Ashok Hurra : Union of India, 2002 AIR (SC) 1771 = 2002(4) SCC 388,

¶23

5 Inderchand Jain (D) through L.Rs. Vs. Motilal (D) through L.Rs., 2009 (.) AIR(SCW) 5364 = 2009(9) JT 552 and

¶24

6 (C) Review Petition No. 15 of 2006 of Gauhati High Court in The Union of India, through the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi Vs. All Manipur VVF Ex-Servicemen Welfare Association,

¶25

3 There cannot be any dispute with regard to the proposition about the power of Court to review or recall its order, if case is made out. The finality

¶26

rpw50.10.sxw

¶27

¶28

of the judgment delivered by the Court should not be re-considered except where there is a glaring omission or patent mistake or like grave error on the face of record which is crept in for whatever may be the reason of fallibility as observed in Northern India Caterers India Limited (Supra) The other judgments are also on the same principles.

¶29

4 The issue, as well as, the facts of the present case are distinct and distinguishable for the basic reason that the Petitioners/Landlords were not heard when the order was passed. The concept of review itself means the re-hearing of the order/ decision already taken finally, after hearing both the parties. Here, the Petitioners were not heard. The submissions to oppose the petition based upon these judgments, in my view, are unacceptable on this ground itself. Once it is clear that the party was not heard and the impugned reversal order passed, therefore, without going into the justification for the non-appearance and as the case is made out, and even otherwise, in the interest of justice, I am inclined to hear the Petitioners/Landlords on merits of the matter.

¶30

5 In view of the principle of natural justice and in the present facts and circumstances of the case, the submission that there is no power and/or the Court should not review and/or revoke such order, as there is no error apparent on the face of record or glaring omission and/or patent mistake

¶31

rpw50.10.sxw

¶32

¶33

and/or like grave error, is unacceptable.

¶34

6 Considering the avermnets made and as the case is made out and in view of the above, the present Review Petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 13^th July, 2005, is revoked. The Writ Petition be listed for re-hearing on 3^rd September, 2010 at 3.00 p.m..

¶35

7 The Review Petition is accordingly allowed, with no order as to costs.

¶36

(ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)

Hansraj Mishrimal Jain (Decd.)by Lrs. - Kanuyabai Hansraj Jain and Ors. v. Dr. Yeshwant G. Bodhe

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hansraj Mishrimal Jain (Decd.)by Lrs. - Kanuyabai Hansraj Jain and Ors. v. Dr. Yeshwant G. Bodhe

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bharatibai Dattatraya Sanga Vs Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Sunanda Sanjay Gharge and Othrs

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Tejaswani Abasaheb Patil and Anr.

Balaram Kamlu Pawshe Vs Sitaram Kamlu Pawshe and Othrs

Dahyabhai v. Patel Vs Lalubhai Patel and 8 Ors.

Dahyabhai v. Patel Vs Lalubhai Patel and 8 Ors.