Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6972 OF 2022
@ SLP (C) No. 17247 OF 2022
@ SLP (C) Diary No. 28749/2022
K. MADAN MOHAN RAO .....Appellant(s)
VERSUS
BHEEMRAO BASWANTHRAO PATIL & ORS. .....Respondent(s)
JUDGMENT
DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.
1. The applications seeking exemption from filing the impugned
order dated 15.06.2022 and filing the petition without the
impugned order (I.A. No. 136063 of 2022 and I.A. No. 136061 of
2021) are allowed.
2. Leave granted.
3. In this appeal, essentially the grievance projected before
us is that an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’) moved in the Election Petition
filed by the present appellant in the High Court for Telangana at
Hyderabad, was taken up for consideration after a considerable
Signature Not Verified
delay and, after a prolonged hearing, ultimately, the order was
Digitally signed by
NEETA SAPRA
Date: 2022.09.27
19:18:14 IST
Reason:
pronounced on 15.06.2022, purportedly allowing the application
1
and rejecting the election petition filed by the present
appellant but then, the reasoned order allowing the application
is not available as yet.
4. On the matter being taken up for consideration, learned
senior counsel has appeared for the contesting respondent i.e.
respondent No. 1 in caveat.
5. It is pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the
contesting respondent that respondent Nos. 15 and 16 arrayed in
this appeal were ordered to be deleted from the array of parties
by order passed by the High Court on 17.02.2020. The submissions
are taken note of. Even otherwise, looking to the subject matter
of this appeal, service of notice on other respondents does not
appear necessary and stands dispensed with.
6. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, we
have heard the matter finally at this stage itself.
7. Dr. Singhvi, learned senior counsel appearing for the
appellant has referred to the background aspects relating to the
proceedings in the election petition and has also referred to the
fact that in view of the delay caused, the appellant had earlier
approached this Court in SLP(C) No. 4518 of 2021, where this
Court granted liberty to the appellant to make a request before
the Chief Justice of the High Court in its order dated
26.03.2021.
8. It has been pointed out that, after the said order dated
26.03.2021 and a request having been made to Hon’ble the Chief
Justice of the High Court, the matter was placed before another
Hon’ble Judge and was proceeded further but then, hearing on the
2
application moved under Order VII Rule 11 CPC itself took a long
time with several dates of hearing; the order was reserved on
22.12.2021; the parties filed written submissions in the first
week of January, 2022; and then, the matter was listed again on
01.04.2022 and was re-reserved. It is pointed out that
ultimately, the order was orally pronounced by the Hon’ble Judge
on 15.06.2022 but, that had only been the pronouncement of the
result and no reasoned order was supplied to the parties. It has
also been submitted that even after more than three months, the
reasoned order is still not available to the parties.
9. Dr. Singhvi, learned senior counsel has particularly
referred to paragraph 10(v) of decision of this Court in the case
of “Anil Rai v. State of Bihar” reported in (2001) 7 SCC 318; and
paragraphs 30 and 31 of the Constitution Bench decision of this
Court in the case of “State of Punjab and Others v. Jagdev Singh
Talwandi” reported in (1984) 1 SCC 596 while submitting that in
the given set of facts and circumstances, the impugned order
deserves to be interfered with for want of reasons.
10. Mr. Raval, learned senior counsel appearing for the
contesting respondents has, in the first place, submitted that in
the scheme of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (‘the
Act of 1951’), particularly Section 116A thereof, an appeal lies
against an order passed by the High Court and a properly
constituted appeal having not been preferred, the matter does not
require consideration by way of an appeal by special leave.
Learned senior counsel for the respondent has also referred to
the decisions aforesaid, and while relying on paragraph 2 in the
3
case of Anil Rai (supra), has argued that on the fundamental maxim
actus curiae neminem gravabit, an act of the Court ought not to
prejudice anyone and hence, no interference is called for against
the interest of the contesting respondent, when his application
has been considered and allowed on merits. The learned senior
counsel has also submitted with reference to paragraph 36 of the
decision in Anil Rai (supra) that in any case, this Court did not
alter the orders impugned therein despite certain observations
referable to the facts and circumstances of that case.
11. As regards the Constitution Bench decision in Jagdev Singh
Talwandi (supra) , learned senior counsel for the respondents has
submitted that the observations therein, essentially relating to
the matters concerning violation of fundamental rights or other
rights affecting human dignity cannot, as such, be applied to
every case or every cause. The emphasis of the learned counsel
has been that in any case, no interference at this juncture is
called for when the High Court has devoted time in hearing the
application and has indeed pronounced the order, even if reasons
are awaited.
12. Upon our expressing reservations in view of the peculiar
nature of the position obtaining at present that even after
pronouncement of the result on 15.06.2022, the reasons for the
verdict are not forthcoming even until this time when this matter
th
is being heard on 26 September, 2022; and our prima facie view
that the order impugned deserves to be set aside only for want of
reasons, learned senior counsel for the respondent has submitted,
after taking instructions, that in any case, the contesting
4
respondent has a strong case to argue on the application under
Order VII Rule 11 CPC and he would be willing to co-operate even
if the application is set down for consideration afresh.
13. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel
for the parties and have taken note of the totality of
circumstances of this case pertaining to election petition filed
by the present appellant in relation to the elections held on
23.05.2019.
14. Apart from the statutory requirements under Section 86(7)
of the Act of 1951, of expeditious proceedings and conclusion of
trial of the election petition within six months from the date of
presentation, it is even otherwise indisputable that this
litigation, by its very nature, calls for expeditious proceedings
while being assigned a specific priority by the Court dealing
with the same.
15. In the present matter, we do not find it necessary to refer
to or dilate upon the previous proceedings, including the order
passed by this Court on 21.03.2021 but, find it difficult to
countenance the position that even after pronouncement of the
result on the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC on
15.06.2022, the reasoned order is not available to the parties
until this date.
16. In Jagdev Singh Talwandi’s case (supra), the Constitution
Bench of this Court has observed, while stating its expectation
for appropriate compliance in the following expressions:
“30. We would like to take this opportunity to point
out that serious difficulties arise on account of the
practice increasingly adopted by the High Courts, of
5
pronouncing the final order without a reasoned
judgment. It is desirable that the final order which
the High Court intends to pass should not be announced
until a reasoned judgment is ready for pronouncement.
Suppose, for example, that a final order without a
reasoned judgment is announced by the High Court that a
house shall be demolished, or that the custody of a
child shall be handed over to one parent as against the
other, or that a person accused of a serious charge is
acquitted, or that a statute is unconstitutional or, as
in the instant case, that a detenu be released from
detention. If the object of passing such orders is to
ensure speedy compliance with them, that object is more
often defeated by the aggrieved party filing a special
leave petition in this Court against the order passed
by the High Court. That places this Court in a
predicament because, without the benefit of the
reasoning of the High Court, it is difficult for this
Court to allow the bare order to be implemented. The
result inevitably is that the operation of the order
passed by the High Court has to be stayed pending
delivery of the reasoned judgment.”
17. In Anil Rai’s case (supra), this Court provided a few basic
guidelines regarding pronouncement of judgment/orders while
expecting them to be adhered to by all the concerned. Therein,
amongst others, in the referred paragraph 10(v), this Court said
as under: -
“(v). If the judgment, for any reason, is not pro-
nounced within a period of six months, any of the par-
ties of the said lis shall be entitled to move an ap-
plication before the Chief Justice of the High Court
with a prayer to withdraw the said case and to make it
over to any other Bench for fresh arguments. It is open
to the Chief Justice to grant the said prayer or to
pass any other order as he deems fit in the circum-
stances.”
18. Though several other submissions are sought to be made by
the learned senior counsel for the respondents seeking to either
distinguish the aforesaid decisions or to suggest that the said
6
decisions are not directly applicable as precedents for the fact
situation of the present case but, we are of the view that the
guidelines and observations therein remain fundamental to the
course of dispensation of justice in any cause before the Court
and the principle set out therein need to be applied with
necessary variation, as may be necessary in the given fact
situation of any particular case.
19. In the present case, as indicated above, the position
obtaining at present is that even after more than three months
from pronouncement of the order by the High Court, the reasons
are not forthcoming and are not available with either of the
parties. Looking to the nature of litigation and the overall
circumstances, we find it difficult to countenance this position.
20. Even if we take into consideration the submissions made on
behalf of the respondents about availability of the remedy of
appeal to this Court, in our view, such an appeal, which could be
preferred on the question/s of law or fact, would also remain an
empty formality for the simple reason that neither determination
of question of law nor determination of any question of fact by
the High Court for the purpose of dealing with the application
under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is available to the parties. In
continuity to this, we are constrained to observe that a party to
the litigation cannot be expected to wait indefinitely for
availability of the reasons for the order of the Court.
Moreover, when the matter relates to the election petition under
the Act of 1951, which itself is a time-sensitive matter, we find
no reason that the appellant be relegated to the statutory remedy
7
of appeal under Section 116A of the Act of 1951 in this case.
21. Having said so, we do not propose to dwell on the merits of
the case for the fair stand taken on behalf of the contesting
respondent by the learned senior counsel after taking
instructions that the respondent is ready and prepared to argue
the matter afresh before the High Court, if the order impugned is
not approved by this Court.
22. For what has been observed and discussed hereinabove, we
are clearly of the view that the order dated 15.06.2022, as said
to have been passed by the High Court in disposal of the
application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, deserves to be
disapproved only for the reason that even until this date, the
reasons for the said order are not available with either of the
parties nor are available on the website of the High Court nor
the copy of the order has been supplied despite the parties
having made the applications seeking certified copy of the order.
23. In the aforesaid view of the matter and in the peculiar
circumstances and rather unsavory situation of the present case,
we deem it appropriate, rather necessary, that the impugned order
be set aside and the matter be restored for re-consideration of
the application I.A. No. 1 of 2020 in Election Petition No. 34 of
2019.
24. Having regard to the peculiar circumstances, we also deem
it appropriate that this order and the entire matter be placed
for necessary orders before the Chief Justice of the High Court,
who may issue appropriate assigning orders for dealing with the
8
matter pursuant to this order and in accordance with law.
25. The parties through their respective counsel shall stand
at notice to appear before Hon’ble the Chief Justice of High
Court on 10.10.2022.
26. It goes without saying that we have not dealt with the
merits of the matter either way and all the aspects remain open
for consideration before the High Court in accordance with law.
27. The appeal stands allowed in the manner and to the extent
indicated above.
28. All pending applications stand disposed of.
..................J.
(DINESH MAHESHWARI) 1
..................J.
(BELA M. TRIVEDI)
New Delhi;
September 26, 2022.
9