SC Deprecates Practice Of High Court In Deciding Second Appeal Without Giving Party An Opportunity To Be Heard

The Court allowed an appeal against the decision of the Bombay High Court holding that the appeal was decided without giving a notice to the Appellant. The Division Bench of the High Court in 2022 had declared the sale deeds in respect of the suit property executed by the Appellant as null and void to the extent of the 3/4th share of the Respondent.

The Bench of Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice K.V. Viswanathan held, “This appeal deserves to be allowed on the short ground that the second appeal, wherein the present appellant was Respondent No.2, was decided even without giving notice to the appellant herein.”

AOR Atul Babasaheb Dakh represented the Appellant, while Senior Advocate Sudhanshu Chaudhari appeared for the Respondents.

The Appellant and the Respondent in their second appeal before the High Court challenged the impugned Judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court.

The Division Bench of the High Court held that “Parwatibai would get ¾ share in the suit property and adopted son Shivaji would get ¼ share in the suit property. The sale deeds executed by Shivaji (adopted son) in favour of the appellants are certainly not binding on original plaintiff No. 2 to the extent of her ¾ share. The sale deeds would be binding upon adopted son Shivaji to the extent of his ¼ share.”

The Appellant in the present appeal submitted that even the questions of law which were framed by the learned Trial Court were framed during the dictation of the order and the Appellant did not have an opportunity of being heard.

The Supreme Court referred to its decision in Suresh Lataruji Ramteke v. Sau. Sumanbai Pandurang Petkar which deprecated such a practice by the High Court. In this 2023 decision, the Apex Court criticized the Bombay High Court for hastily overturning the findings of two Civil Courts without adequately hearing the parties or examining the Trial Court records.

The Court in Suresh Lataruji Ramteke (supra) held, “The haste with which the Court proceeded to dispose of the appeal without proper and adequate opportunity to address arguments cannot be appreciated. The governing statute lays considerable emphasis on hearing the parties on all questions the same is reflected in various pronouncements of this Court. The approach adopted by a Court in disposing of such appeals must abide by the same.”

Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order and remitted the matter back to the High Court for deciding it afresh in accordance with law.

“Since the appeal arises out of a suit filed in the year 2009, we request the High Court to decide the appeal expeditiously, preferably within a period of one year from today,” the Bench stated.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the Appeal.

Cause Title: Shivaji v. Parwatibai & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 917)

Appearance:

Appellant: AOR Atul Babasaheb Dakh; Advocates Diganta Gogoi, Bitu Kumar Singh and Praveen Kumar Pandey

Respondents: Senior Advocate Sudhanshu Chaudhari; Advocate Shreyas Gacche; AOR T.R.B. Sivakumar

Click here to read/download the Order