Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Sk. Naser, brother of respondent No.1, sought impleadment as plaintiff No.2 in a suit for specific performance of contract for sale of land filed by respondent No.1 against respondent No.2. The trial court allowed the impleadment and subsequent amendment of plaint without opposition. Later, the trial judge suo motu set aside these orders without hearing the petitioner, reasoning that the petitioner had no interest. The High Court held that the trial court could not pass such an order without giving an opportunity of being heard to the affected party, violating principles of natural justice. The impugned order was quashed and set aside, and the trial court was directed to proceed with the suit.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Recall of Orders - Natural Justice - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order 1 Rule 10, Order 6 Rule 17 - Trial court suo motu set aside orders allowing impleadment and amendment without hearing the affected party - Held that such exercise of power without affording opportunity of hearing is illegal and violative of principles of natural justice (Paras 3-4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court could suo motu set aside its earlier orders allowing impleadment and amendment without hearing the affected party.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, quashed and set aside the impugned order dated 1st August 2009, and directed the trial court to proceed with the suit in accordance with law.
Law Points
- Natural justice
- right to be heard
- recall of orders
- impleadment
- amendment of plaint
- suo motu powers
Case Details
2011 LawText (BOM) (04) 13
Writ Petition No. 5340 of 2009
Shri A.S. Bajaj for Petitioner, Shri Sandeep Deshmukh for Respondent No.2
Sk. Naser S/o Sk. Ibrahim
Sk. Babu S/o Sk. Ibrahim and Jakaullah Khan S/O Gulam Insar Khan
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution challenging a trial court order passed suo motu setting aside impleadment and amendment orders.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought quashing of the trial court's order dated 1st August 2009 which set aside the orders allowing his impleadment as plaintiff No.2 and amendment of plaint.
Filing Reason
The trial court suo motu set aside earlier orders without hearing the petitioner, violating principles of natural justice.
Previous Decisions
The trial court had earlier allowed the petitioner's impleadment as plaintiff No.2 and permitted amendment of plaint. Subsequently, the same court suo motu set aside those orders.
Issues
Whether the trial court could suo motu set aside its earlier orders without hearing the affected party?
Whether the impugned order was lawful?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the trial court passed the order without giving him an opportunity of being heard, violating natural justice.
Respondent No.2 supported the petitioner's case; Respondent No.1 remained absent.
Ratio Decidendi
A court cannot suo motu set aside its earlier orders without affording an opportunity of hearing to the affected party, as it violates principles of natural justice.
Judgment Excerpts
The learned Judge, firstly, could not have passed this order without giving an opportunity of being heard to the affected party, the petitioner.
The Second question is, whether order is lawful?. The learned Judge probably did not read the amended plaint.
Procedural History
Respondent No.1 filed Special Civil Suit No.547 of 1993 for specific performance. Petitioner applied for impleadment as plaintiff No.2, which was allowed. Amendment of plaint was also allowed. Later, the trial court suo motu set aside these orders on 1st August 2009. Petitioner challenged this order by way of writ petition.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Articles 226, 227
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order 1 Rule 10, Order 6 Rule 17
