Case Note & Summary
Background: The dispute arose from a civil suit concerning alleged encroachment on a public street. The respondents, representing themselves and other residents of the village, sued the appellants in the Court of the District Munsif of Thiruvaiyaru, seeking a mandatory injunction for removal of a masonry structure and a permanent injunction restraining further encroachment and obstruction of the right of way. The appellants claimed ownership of the plot and denied that it formed part of a public street. Facts: The trial court framed issues, considered evidence, and decreed the suit in favour of the respondents, issuing injunctions against the appellants. On appeal, the Subordinate Judge at Kumbakonam set aside the trial court decree, recording findings against the respondents on substantive issues, while leaving open the question of customary rights or easement. The respondents then filed a second appeal before the Madras High Court. A learned Single Judge, Basheer Ahmed Sayeed J., allowed the appeal and passed a decree in favour of the respondents, but the judgment merely stated that after careful consideration of all issues, the best form of decree was as set out, without giving any reasons. Legal Issues: The Supreme Court considered two main issues: whether the special leave petition should be dismissed or leave revoked because the appellants had not availed the remedy of a Letters Patent Appeal; and whether the High Court's non-speaking judgment in second appeal satisfied the requirements of a judgment under the Code of Civil Procedure. Arguments: The respondents raised a preliminary objection that since the appellants had not applied for leave under the Letters Patent of the Madras High Court against the Single Judge's decision, the special leave granted by the Supreme Court should be revoked or the appeal dismissed. The appellants contended that the Supreme Court had previously held in Raruha Singh v. Achal Singh that once special leave is granted, it cannot be virtually revoked by accepting such a preliminary objection. They also argued that the High Court's method of disposing of the second appeal, by merely stating a conclusion without reasons, rendered the judgment unsustainable. Court's Analysis: The Supreme Court clarified that the observation in Raruha Singh should not be interpreted as laying down a general proposition that special leave can never be revoked. The Court has revoked special leave on several occasions when justified. The true position is that the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 136 is discretionary and must be decided on the facts of each case. If the respondent had raised the objection at the leave stage and it was rejected on merits, the point could not be re-agitated; otherwise it could be raised at final hearing. On the merits, the Court found that the learned Judge's order read more like an award made by an arbitrator who is not obliged to give reasons. When such a course is adopted by the High Court in second appeals, it must be corrected. The judgment did not satisfy the basic and legitimate requirements of a judgment under the Code of Civil Procedure. Decision: The Supreme Court set aside the decree passed in the second appeal and directed that the matter be dealt with by the High Court in a normal way in accordance with law. The preliminary objection was not accepted as a bar to considering the merits of the appeal.
Headnote
A) Practice and Procedure - Special Leave Petition - Requirement to exhaust Letters Patent Appeal before approaching Supreme Court under Article 136 - Constitution of India, Article 136 and Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Section 100 - The Supreme Court held that there is no unqualified rule that special leave must be refused or revoked if the party has not moved for leave under the Letters Patent; nor is there an inflexible rule that if leave has been granted it must always be revoked. The question whether jurisdiction under Article 136 should be exercised depends on the facts of each case. If the respondent raised the objection at the leave stage and it was rejected on merits, the same point cannot be re-agitated at final hearing; otherwise it can be raised. Normally a party should avail Letters Patent Appeal before coming to Supreme Court, but in the present case the Court proceeded to consider the merits because the High Court judgment was fundamentally defective. Held that special leave need not be revoked solely on this preliminary objection. (Paras 12-27) B) Civil Procedure - Judgment and Decree - Requirements of a valid judgment under Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Section 100 - The High Court in second appeal passed a decree merely stating that after careful consideration of the issues, the best form of decree was as set out, without giving any reasons. The Supreme Court held that such a judgment did not satisfy the basic and legitimate requirements of a judgment under the Code of Civil Procedure. The decree passed in second appeal was set aside and the High Court was directed to deal with the matter in a normal way in accordance with law. Held that a non-speaking order in second appeal is unsustainable. (Paras 9-11, 28)
Issue of Consideration
Whether special leave should be revoked on ground of non-availment of Letters Patent Appeal; and whether the judgment of the High Court in second appeal, which did not contain reasons, is sustainable under the Code of Civil Procedure.
Final Decision
Supreme Court held that special leave need not be revoked solely due to non-availment of Letters Patent Appeal; each case depends on facts. On merits, the High Court's judgment did not satisfy basic requirements of a judgment under CPC as it gave no reasons. Accordingly, the decree passed in second appeal was set aside and the matter remitted to High Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law.
Law Points
- Special leave under Article 136 is discretionary
- no inflexible rule that non-availment of Letters Patent Appeal bars special leave
- each case decided on facts
- res judicata not apply if point not decided at leave stage
- judgment must satisfy basic requirements of CPC and contain reasons
- non-speaking order in second appeal invalid
