Supreme Court of India
DESA SINGH versus AJIT SINGH AND ORS.
- Decided
- 8 December 2006
- Judges listed
- ARIJIT PASAYAT
- Disposal
- Disposed off
Citations
- Official
- [2006] SUPP. 10 S.C.R. 475 · 2006 INSC 980
- Also cited as
- (2007) 15 SCC 235
Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.
Cited by
We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.
Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.
The Court's text
Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.
Dr. ARIJIT PASA Y AT, J. Leave granted.
p. 476, margin A
Challenge in these appeals is to the correctness of judgment rendered by a learned Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissing the second appeal filed. Though appeal was decided in the absence of learned counsel for the appellant yet the High Court proceeded to decide the matter on merits.
p. 476, margin A
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that an application in terms of Order XL! of the Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short the 'CPC') was filed. Shri lshwari Parshad, Advocate was initially engaged by the appellant at the time of admission. He retired from·practice due to his old age. Thereafter another learned counsel Sh. Susheel Kumar Goyal alongwith his son Sh. S.B. Goyal were engaged. Unfortunately, Sh. S.B. Goyal expired in 2001 and thereafter Sh. Sushi! Kumar Goyal also retired from practice. When the matter was listed on 22.10.2002 there was no appearance on behalf of the appellant because of the aforesaid unforeseen circumstances. That is how there was .no representation when the matter was listed. Unfortunately, the High Court without referring to all the relevant aspects placed for consideration, decided the matter on merits.
p. 476, margin B
Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that though the appellant was not represented, the High Court looked into the records and decided the matter.
p. 476, margin D
As the factual scenario which is almost undisputed goes show, there was no representation when the matter was taken up before the High Court. Because of circumstances beyond foe control of the appellants, there was no appearance and the matter was decided against them. Normally when the appellant is not represented, the High Court would dismiss it for default and not go into the merits in detail. That is precisely what has not been done in the present case.
p. 476, margin E
In the peculiar circumstances, we set aside the order of the High Court anc remit the matter to the High Court for fresh hearing on merits.
p. 476, margin F
Learned counsel for the appellant stated that another counsel shall be engaged within a period of one month. The matter shall be listed before the appropriate Bench after a period of six weeks.
p. 476, margin F
Appeals are disposed of to the aforesaid extent with no order as to costs. NJ. Appeals disposed of.
p. 476, margin G