Supreme Court of India
M/S SAHARA INDIA AND ORS. versus M.C. AGARWAL HUF
- Decided
- 21 February 2007
- Judges listed
- ARIJIT PASAYAT
- Disposal
- Disposed off
Citations
- Official
- [2007] 2 S.C.R. 1037 · 2007 INSC 183
- Also cited as
- (2007) 11 SCC 800
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.
- Not shown
- 2 other citation strings that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.
Cited by
Cited in 1 other Supreme Court judgment we hold.
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. Paragraph numbering in our copy is uncertain (interior_gap). Link to paragraph N with #para-N.
Leave granted.
p. 1038
Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court dismissing the First Appeal No. 681/2003 and -r upholding the order passed by learned Additional District Judge in Suit No.54 of2001.
p. 1038
Detailed reference to the factual aspects would be unnecessary except noting the vital aspects. 4: Suit No.54/2001 was filed in the Court of District Judge, Delhi. The same was for possession, recovery of damages and mesne profit and rent @ Rs.70,664/- p.m. i.e. On 26.2.2002 the learned Additional District Judge framed issues and the case was adjourned to 13.5.2002 for the evid,ence of the plaintiff. On 13.5.2002 the Presiding Officer was on leave and the case was adjourned to 29.5.2002 for the plaintiff's evidence. On 29.5.2002 none appeared for the defendant and the matter was adjourned to be taken up oµ 31.5.2002 for final arguments and the matter was directed to be placed for orders after lunch. Finally, the suit was decreed. The appeal filed by the defendants was dismissed.
p. 1038, margin C
Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the course adopted by the trial Court has no sanctity in law. The matter was listed on 13.5.2002 r for plaintiff's evidence and was subsequently adjourned to 29.5.2002. Even if the defendants were not present the order could have been at the most to set the defendants ex parte and another date should have been fixed. Interestingly, the matter was taken up that very day and a long judgment running into several pages was delivered.
p. 1038, margin E
It was submitted that the reason for non-appearance was indicated to be wrong noting of the date by learned counsel appearing for the defendants. The High Court did not discuss any of the pleas and the submissions and by a cryptic order dismissed the appeal.
p. 1038, margin F
Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand submitted that the appellants have not come with clean hands, and they have given and distorted picture.
pp. 1038–1039, margin H
We find that the High Court has disposed of the First practically by a non-reasoned order. It did not even consider the defendants as to why there was non-appearance. Be that as it may, adopted by the trial Court appears to be unusual. Therefore, we proper to remit the matter to the trial Court for fresh adjudication. matter is pending the trial Court shall dispose of the matter within months from the date of receipt of our order.
p. 1039, margin A
It is also proper that the appellants should pay cost to the respondent. Even if the reason for non-appearance is accepted tO be correct, the was certainly prejudiced. Merely because the learned. counsel appearing the defendants did not take proper care and caution "fhat cannot be to loose sight of the prejudice caused to the plaintiff-respondent. has to be meted out by costs which we fix at Rs.20,000/-. The amount be paid within I 0 days from today. A receipt shall be filed before Court immediately thereafter so that our directions for disposal within months can be duly complied with.
p. 1039, margin C
Parties are permitted to place copy of our order before the so that necessary directions can be issued.
p. 1039, margin D
The appeal is disposed of. N.J. Appeal disposed
p. 1039, margin E