AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
N. Kumar, J.—These two appeals arise out of a common order, dismissing Miscellaneous Petition. No. 778/2009 and allowing Miscellaneous Petition No. 35/2010.
We find from the said order, at paragraph 26, the learned Judge has observed as under:
A part from this, the Hon''ble Supreme Court of India while dealing with the Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) No(s). 19-21/2009 has passed three orders on 29.9.2009, 1.10.2009 and 14.12.2009. The Hon''ble Apex court its order dated 14.12.2009 clearly and in categorical terms has directed in the following words "we also direct that no Court would pass any other order in this respect" and has further directed the Chief Secretary of the State of Karnataka to ensure that the orders are carried out in letter and spirit.
Therefore, the learned City Civil Judge restrained himself from passing any order in the miscellaneous proceedings and passed an order making interlocutory attachment. A copy of the aforesaid order of the Supreme Court was also made available to us.
Sri K.G. Raghavan, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants in these appeals submitted the said judgment of the Supreme Court has no application to the facts of these cases; as on a mis-representation made by the State, the Supreme Court appears to have passed the said order. The mis-representation is that the property is free from all encumbrances. On the day when said submission was made, property did not belong to M/s. Vinivinc Properties. The. appellants filed a suit, for specific performance in the competent Court in O.S. No. 17297/2004 and obtained a decree in their favour on 16.04.2007 and therefore, he submitted that the approach of the trial Court is erroneous.
We are of the view that when the Apex Court has made an order in such broad terms, the judicial discipline demands all the Courts in this country should give effect to the order passed by the Apex Court. Whether the said order is correct or not has to be adjudicated by the Supreme Court. We cannot sit in judgment over an order of the Supreme Court nor is it open to us to interpret the order of the Supreme Court in the light of the facts of these cases.
In these circumstances, we are of the view the proper course for the appellants would be to approach the Apex Court, against this order of the trial Judge and seek appropriate orders from the Supreme Court.
Therefore, without going into the merits of the order passed by the trial Judge, in conformity with the order passed by the Apex Co art and to maintain judicial discipline, we reject these two appeals, so that the appellants can approach the Apex Court without any further loss of time. Ordered accordingly.