Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose in the context of a civil revision application filed by the petitioner against a judgment and decree passed by the Extra Assistant Judge, Kutch-Bhuj. The petitioner sought to challenge the decision made on 10.1.1995 in Civil Regular Appeal No.62/88. The court heard arguments from both sides, including the petitioner represented by learned counsel Shri Y.S. Mankad and the opponent represented by power-of-attorney holder Shri Harilal D. Shah. After considering the facts and circumstances, the High Court allowed the revision application, setting aside the previous judgment and decree. The court directed the District Court to restore the appeal and dispose of it in accordance with law, ensuring both parties were heard on merits. The court also emphasized the need for the appeal to be heard expeditiously, preferably by the end of December 1996. Additionally, the court ordered the petitioner to pay costs of Rs.2,000/- to the opponent, acknowledging the hardship faced by the opponent due to the circumstances of the case. The payment was to be made on or before 9th September 1996, with the option for the amount to be paid in cash to the opponent, which was agreed upon by the petitioner’s counsel. The court concluded by making the rule absolute to the extent of the orders given.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Revision Application - Setting Aside Judgment - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The court allowed the revision application and set aside the judgment and decree dated 10.1.1995, directing the District Court to restore and dispose of the matter on merits. The court emphasized the need for expeditious hearing of the appeal, preferably by the end of December 1996. Held that the restoration was necessary for proper adjudication (Paras 2-2). B) Costs - Award of Costs - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The petitioner was directed to pay costs of Rs.2,000/- to the opponent due to hardship incurred by the opponent. The court ordered the payment to be made on or before 9th September 1996, considering the circumstances of the case (Paras 3-4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the previous judgment and decree should be set aside and the matter restored for hearing on merits
Final Decision
The court allowed the revision application, set aside the judgment and decree dated 10.1.1995, and directed the District Court to restore the appeal for hearing on merits. The petitioner was ordered to pay costs of Rs.2,000/- to the opponent by 9th September 1996.
Law Points
- Civil procedure
- revision application
- costs
- appellate jurisdiction
