Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Rajkumar Shankarlal Agrawal, was the original plaintiff in a civil suit. He had filed applications (Exhibits 35 and 36) seeking police aid for measurement of suit property and direction to the Deputy Superintendent of Land Records to measure the property, which were allowed by the trial court on 17.07.2017. On 24.07.2017, the defendant filed two applications (Exhibits 40 and 41) seeking review of those orders. The trial court called for the say of the plaintiff but proceeded to allow both review applications on the same day without granting time to the plaintiff to file a reply. The plaintiff's reply was subsequently filed on 14.08.2017, but the orders had already been passed. Additionally, the trial court passed an order below Exhibit 1 directing the defendant to add parties who are found to be interested persons. The plaintiff challenged these orders before the Bombay High Court. The High Court held that the trial court's action in passing orders on the review applications without hearing the plaintiff was in gross violation of principles of natural justice. The court set aside the orders dated 24.07.2017 below Exhibits 40 and 41 and the order below Exhibit 1 dated 26.04.2018, and remitted the applications for fresh consideration after hearing both parties.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Review of Orders - Natural Justice - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order 47 Rule 1 - The trial court allowed review applications filed by the defendant on the same day without granting time to the plaintiff to file a reply, despite calling for the say of the plaintiff. Held that such orders are in gross violation of principles of natural justice and cannot be sustained. (Paras 2-5) B) Civil Procedure - Addition of Parties - Suo Motu Direction - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order 1 Rule 10 - The trial court directed the defendant to add interested parties without hearing the plaintiff. Held that such direction, passed without affording opportunity to the plaintiff, is also liable to be set aside. (Paras 2, 5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court could pass orders on review applications without hearing the opposite party, and whether such orders are sustainable in law.
Final Decision
The writ petition is allowed. The orders dated 24.07.2017 below Exhibits 40 and 41 and the order below Exhibit 1 dated 26.04.2018 are set aside. The trial court is directed to decide the applications afresh after hearing both parties. Rule is made absolute accordingly.
Law Points
- Natural justice
- right to be heard
- review without notice
- procedural fairness
- civil procedure
