AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
G.R. Udhwani, J.—Special Civil Suit No. 64 of 2007 was filed in the Court of learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ankleswar raising various issues in relation to the property in dispute between the parties. At the interlocutory stage, a Civil Application No. 8653 of 2010 in Special Civil Application No. 3134 of 2009 came to be instituted challenging the order dated 19.02.2008 below application Exh. 43 in the said Suit, whereby the application for attachment before judgment made by the original plaintiffs-petitioners was rejected. After hearing the learned advocates for the parties, this Court in the said Civil Application issued the following directions:
Since directions have already been given by learned Principal Senior Civil Judge to decide the suit proceedings finally on or before December, 2010 and securities furnished by the defendant is found adequate and to remain on record of the proceedings, trial court is directed to decide the suit on or before 31st December, 2010.
Meanwhile, the defendant is allowed to enter into negotiation with 3rd party so as to dispose of the property but shall not create any 3rd party rights finally and if necessary, may seek permission of the trial court.
The respondents herein preferred an application Exh. 80 seeking a permission as stated in Paragraph-5 above. The Trial Court after perusing the application and hearing the defendants and without noting as to whether the plaintiffs were present or had remained absent, passed the impugned order granting the permission. The only issue involved in the petition, therefore, is as to whether such an order could have been passed by the Trial Court without hearing the plaintiffs.
The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that such an order was in total violation of the directions contained in Paragraphs-4 and 5 above and had the Court heard the petitioners, appropriate assistance would have been rendered.
The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that no useful purpose would have been served because even on hearing the petitioners, the result would have been the same. The learned counsel also wanted this Court to enter into the merits of the case.
In view of the fact that the impugned order is passed in violation of principles of natural justice, it is deemed appropriate not to enter into the merits of the case. It is settled law that the fact that no useful purpose would be achieved by hearing a person is not a consideration for sustaining an order or judgment, which is rendered without hearing a person. The learned counsel for the respondents is unable to dispute that the petitioners were not heard before passing of the impugned order.
In above view of the matter, the petition is required to be allowed. It is, therefore, allowed. The impugned order is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded to the Court below for hearing the application Exh. 80 a fresh. The decision on the application Exh. 80 shall be rendered within a period of 15 days if the learned advocates cooperate and if the Court finds any of the parties not cooperating, it will be open for the Court to proceed to hear the application ex-parte. It is noticed that the direction in Paragraph-4 was to decide the Suit by 31st December, 2010 and it is reported that it has not been decided. The Trial Courts should bear in mind that when the High Court prescribes a time limit, it is with a purpose and ignoring the direction of the High Court may entail into serious consequence. They are duty bound to furnish appropriate report as to why the directions were not complied with and seek extension if there was a reasonable ground for not completing the matter within a time prescribed by the High Court. In the instant case, this Court while restraining itself from taking any further action, it is directed that now the Suit shall be decided within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the writ of this Court if the pleadings are completed and if not, the parties will complete the pleadings within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the writ of this Court and within a period of three months thereafter, the Trial Court will decide the suit. Rule is accordingly made absolute.