The High Court rejected the appellant's request to argue a new point relating to the non-compliance of village punchayat rules, as the contention had been given up before the Single Judge during the original litigation.
Appeal rejected with no order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
lpa333.11.sxw
1
ssm
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 333 OF 2011
IN WRIT PETITION NO. 7690 OF 2011
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 394 OF 2011 IN LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 333 OF 2011
Shri. Raosaheb Sampat Derle
....Appellant.
Vs.
The Tahsildar, Niphad & Ors.
...Respondents.
Mr. Harshad M. Inamdar for the Appellant. Mr. V.S. Gokhale, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Mr. K.S. Patil for Respondent Nos. 4 to 15.
CORAM :- D.K DESHMUKH AND ANOOP V. MOHTA, JJ.
DATE :- 17 OCTOBER, 2011.
P.C. :-
The learned counsel appearing for the Appellant does not even contend that the reasons that have been given by the learned Single Judge for rejecting his petition are wrong. He submits that he should be permitted to argue a point which admittedly was not argued by him before the learned Single Judge. Relying on the Judgment of a
lpa333.11.sxw
2
ssm
Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in G. Ranga Reddi Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh , the learned counsel submits that if point goes to the root of the matter, it can be permitted to be argued in the Letters Patent Appeal though it was not argued before the learned Single Judge. Perusal of the record, however, shows that the contention that while passing the Motion of No Confidence, provisions of Rule 17 of the Bombay Village Punchayat (Meetings) Rules, 1959 were not followed was argued before the learned Single Judge on 19 September 2011 as one of the points and the learned Single Judge mentioned that in his order and issued notice. On the returnable date when the matter was heard for admission, this contention however was given up and was not argued before the learned Single Judge. Obviously, therefore, as the contention was given up before the learned Single Judge, it cannot be permitted to be argued in the Letters Patent Appeal. The Appeal is therefore, rejected. There shall be no order as to costs.
(ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) (D.K.DESHMUKH, J.)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a contention not argued before the Single Judge can be raised in the Letters Patent Appeal.
Does the case satisfy the exception for raising new points at the appeal stage.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
G. Ranga Reddi Vs. State of Andhra PradeshReferred
G. Ranga Reddi Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Shri. Raosaheb Sampat Derle
The Tahsildar, Niphad
D.K DESHMUKH
ANOOP V. MOHTA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
