Case Note & Summary
The writ petition was filed before the Bombay High Court challenging an order dated 7 October 2014 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Konkan Division, which had partly allowed a revision application, set aside an eviction order dated 31 May 2014 passed by the Competent Authority in Case No.96 of 2012, and remanded the matter for fresh disposal after allowing parties to adduce oral and documentary evidence. The eviction order had directed the respondent to hand over vacant possession of Penthouse No.504, Dil Bahar Co-operative Housing Society, Vashi, to the applicant and to pay compensation of Rs.40,000 per month from August 2010. The dispute arose from a flat originally purchased by Sanjay Govind Kolhatkar under a registered agreement for sale dated 15 December 1995, with the assistance of a loan from LIC Housing Finance Limited. Sanjay Kolhatkar passed away on 28 February 2011; the petitioners are his widow, two sons, and mother. The history included an unregistered leave and licence agreement dated 17 November 2001 executed by the first petitioner in favour of the second respondent for a period from 17 November 2001 to 16 October 2002, with a monthly licence fee of Rs.15,000 and security deposit of Rs.1,50,000. The respondents relied on alleged diary entries dated 2 April 2003 and 20 April 2005, contending that Sanjay Kolhatkar had agreed to sell the flat for Rs.30,00,000, of which Rs.7,00,000 was paid in cash, Rs.10,00,000 was to be transferred towards LIC loan, and an additional Rs.1,36,000 was paid to LIC. The 2005 diary entry was unsigned. The petitioners denied the signature and handwriting of the 2003 entry; it was admitted that no suit for specific performance had been filed and the alleged agreement was merely a diary entry, not a registered instrument. A subsequent registered leave and licence agreement dated 25 January 2008 was executed between Sanjay Kolhatkar as licensor and the first respondent as licensee for a period from 1 January 2008 to 30 November 2008, with a monthly licence fee of Rs.20,000 and terms expressly stating that no tenancy or interest was created. Before the court could consider merits, a letter dated 13 December 2023 from the respondents' counsel requested rehearing because the judgment pronounced on 7 August 2023 had not been published. The court observed that the judgment had been dictated in open court on 26 July, 27 July, 31 July and 7 August 2023 and was not reserved. It referred to Supreme Court decisions and quoted the Supreme Court in SJVNL v. CCC-HIM JV that Order 20 CPC does not apply to the High Court and that only after six months' hiatus between reserving judgment and delivering it can a party move for fresh hearing. The provided text ends before the court's final analysis and decision on the merits of the writ petition.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Judgment Pronouncement - Delay in Pronouncing Judgments - Order 20 CPC - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order 20 - A letter was filed requesting fresh hearing on the ground that the judgment pronounced on 7 August 2023 had not been published; the court distinguished the cited Supreme Court decisions, observing that the judgment had been dictated in open court on multiple dates and was not reserved; the court quoted the Supreme Court's holding that Order 20 CPC does not apply to the High Court and that only after six months' hiatus between reserving and delivering judgment can an application for fresh hearing be moved. Held that the matter was not one of reserved judgment and no rehearing was ordered (Paras 5-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Additional Commissioner's order setting aside the Competent Authority's eviction order and remanding the case for fresh evidence was legally valid; whether the High Court should order fresh hearing due to delay in publication of judgment
Law Points
- Order 20 CPC does not apply to the High Court
- Anil Rai guidelines apply only after six months' hiatus between reserving judgment and delivering it
- judgment dictated in open court is not a reserved judgment
- application for rehearing cannot be made before publication if judgment not reserved
