Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1565 (RAJ)

National Housing Co v. State of Rajasthan

2010-08-27

R.S.CHAUHAN

body2010
JUDGMENT 1. - Aggrieved by the judgment dated 31st July, 2001 passed by this Court, this review petition has been filed. 2. Without going into the deep history of the litigation, suffice it to say that in 1974, Shri Triloki Nath Sahani, respondent No.4, filed an application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1953 for seeking a reference to be made before the Civil Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur. Consequently, a reference was made to the Civil Judge. Although in 1978, the reference was dismissed in default, but after a lapse of eight years, the said reference was restored in 1987. Vide order dated 06.04.1990, the learned Civil Judge decreed the reference in favour of Mr. Triloki Nath Sahani. Aggrieved by the said order, the State of Rajasthan filed an appeal before this Court. During the pendency of the appeal, in 1999, the National Housing Co-operative Society Ltd., ("the petitioner" for short) moved an application for impleadment. On 31.03.1999 while dealing with the petitioner's application, this Court observed that "the application shall be considered subsequently, if the need so arises". However, on 17.05.2001 when the case was listed for final hearing, the name of the petitioner's counsel was not shown in the cause-list. Inadvertently, the application filed by the petitioner was not considered. Without hearing the petitioner, this Court pronounced the judgment on 31.07.2001. Therefore, the petitioner filed a review petition before this Court as well as a Special Leave Petition ('SLP', for short) before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Vide order dated 01.04.2002, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to dismiss the said SLP in limine. Subsequently, vide order dated 21/23.05.2003, this Court also dismissed the review petition filed by the petitioner. Since the petitioner was aggrieved by the order dated 21/23.05.2003, it filed a SLP before the Apex Court. Vide order dated 28.03.2005, the Apex Court allowed the SLP and directed this Court to hear this review petition on merit. Hence, this review petition before this Court. 3. Mr. Alok Sharma, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently contended that on 17.05.2001, when the case was listed for hearing, the name of counsel for the petitioner was not shown in the cause-list. Thus, neither the petitioner, nor his counsel had any information that the case was so listed. Hence, this review petition before this Court. 3. Mr. Alok Sharma, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently contended that on 17.05.2001, when the case was listed for hearing, the name of counsel for the petitioner was not shown in the cause-list. Thus, neither the petitioner, nor his counsel had any information that the case was so listed. Without considering the application, which was already filed by the petitioner, this Court proceeded to hear the case and to pass the judgment. Since neither the petitioner, nor his counsel were aware that the case had been listed, they had sufficient reason for not appearing before the Court when the matter was taken up. According to the learned counsel, thus, sufficient reason does exist for their non-appearance. Once "sufficient reason" is shown to exist, the judgment deserves to be reviewed. In order to buttress these contentions, the learned counsel has relied upon the case of Shaeed Bhagat Singh Co-op., H.B. Society Ltd. v. Improvement Trust, Ludhiana, AIR 2000 SC 3589 . 4. On the other hand, Mr. Kamlakar Sharma, the learned counsel for the non-petitioner Nos. 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.5 ands 4.6, has contended that on numerous occasions, the case was listed and yet the learned counsel for the petitioner did not press for decision on the application for impleadment. Therefore, he does not have "sufficient reason" for filing the review petition. 5. Mr. R.K. Mathur, the learned counsel for the JDA, and Mr. Anil Mehta, the learned counsel for respondent No.4.4, have echoed the contentions raised by Mr. Kamlakar Sharma. 6. In rejoinder, Mr. Alok Sharma has contended that sufficient reasons have been given for non-appearance on the date when the case was taken up for final argument. According to the cause-list, since the name of learned counsel for the petitioner was not shown, he had sufficient reason for not appearing before the Court. Therefore, the conduct of the counsel on previous dates is irrelevant. Further, for the conduct of the counsel, the petitioner cannot be made to suffer. In order to support this contention the learned counsel has relied upon the case of Jagat Dhish Bhargava v. Jawahar Lal Bhargava & Ors., AIR 1961 SC 832 . Moreover, once the application was filed, once this Court had observed that it will decide the application subsequently, it was the duty of this Court to do so. In order to support this contention the learned counsel has relied upon the case of Jagat Dhish Bhargava v. Jawahar Lal Bhargava & Ors., AIR 1961 SC 832 . Moreover, once the application was filed, once this Court had observed that it will decide the application subsequently, it was the duty of this Court to do so. Lastly, once a party has knocked on the doors of the Court, the doors cannot be shut without hearing the party. After all not only justice should have been done, but it should also appear that justice has been done to the party. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 8. According to the order-sheet dated 31.03.1999, this Court had clearly observed that it would deal with the application for impleadment subsequently, if the need so arises. Thus, the Court was aware that an application for impleadment had been filed. However, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, on 17.05.2001 when the case was listed for final hearing, the name of the petitioner's counsel did not appear in the cause-list. Thus, the petitioner did not have a chance to insist that before the case can be decided finally, its application for impleadment should be considered and adjudged. The fact that the name of the petitioner's counsel did not appear in the cause-list has also been noticed by this Court in the review petition in order dated 27.05.2002. Thus, the petitioner did not have a chance to insist that before the case can be decided finally, its application for impleadment should be considered and adjudged. The fact that the name of the petitioner's counsel did not appear in the cause-list has also been noticed by this Court in the review petition in order dated 27.05.2002. The relevant portion of the order-sheet dated 27.05.2002 reads as under : mDr izdj.k dh cgl fnukad 17-5-2001 dks lquh xbZ rFkk bl U;k;ky; us fu.kZ; fnukad 31-7-2001 }kjk flfoy fofo/k vihy uEcj 413@1991 dks vafre :i ls fuLrkfjr dj fn;kA eSaus fnukad 17-5-2001 dh nSfud okn lwph dks ns[kkA mDr frfFk dh nSfud okn lwph esa izkFkhZ us'kuy gkmflax dkW&vkijsfVo lkslk;Vh fy0 ds vf/koDrk Jh lkdsr ikfjd dk uke n'kkZ;k ugha x;k Fkk tcfd Jh lkdsr ikjhd us vius odkyrukek izLrqr dj fn;k FkkA vc izkFkhZ us'kuy gkmflax dkW&vkijsfVo lkslk;Vh fy0 us bl U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr fu.kZ; fnukad 31-7-2001 ds iqujkoyksdu gsrq vkosnu i= izLrqr fd;k gS ,oa /kkjk 5 fyfeVs'ku ,DV ds vUrxZr vkosnu i= Hkh izLrqr fd;k gSA fMys daMksu dh tkrh gSA vizkFkhZx.k dks N% lIrkg dh okilh ds fy; uksfVl tkjh fd;s tkosa rFkk izkFkhZ ds fo}ku vf/koDrk dks rkehy djkus gsrq nLrh nh tkosA Thus, admittedly even according to this Court the name of the petitioner's counsel was not shown in the cause-list. Hence, the petitioner had sufficient reason for not appearing before this Court. 9. Mr. Kamlakar Sharma has pleaded that the case was listed many a times, but still the petitioner's counsel did not press for his application for impleadment. However, he has not produced copies of the relevant order-sheets to buttress this contention. Thus, in absence of any documentary evidence it is difficult to accept this contention. 10. It is, indeed, a settled principle of natural justice that before any adverse order can be passed against any party, the party has to be heard. The principle of audi alteram partem is more strictly applicable to the judiciary, than the quasi-judicial or administrative bodies. Since the court was aware that an application for impleadment had been filed as reflected in the order dated 31.03.1999, it was the duty of this Court to first deal with the application and then to decide the case finally. However, inadvertently this Court has failed to consider and decide the application. Since the court was aware that an application for impleadment had been filed as reflected in the order dated 31.03.1999, it was the duty of this Court to first deal with the application and then to decide the case finally. However, inadvertently this Court has failed to consider and decide the application. Thus, it is an error which is apparent on the face of the record. 11. Lastly, people approach a Court of law with the high hope that justice would be done to their cause. Since the judicial system prosper on the faith of the people, therefore, one of the settled principles of jurisprudence is that justice should not only be done, but should also appear to have been done by the Court. Therefore, the Court should be weary of shutting the door on the face of a litigant in an apathetic manner. Since the petitioner had filed an application for impleadment, the petitioner should have the satisfaction that he has been heard on his application. He should also have the satisfaction that this Court has heard him patiently and justice has been done in the case. 12. Therefore, for the reasons stated above, the review petition is, hereby, allowed and the judgment dated 31.07.2001 is, hereby, set aside. Since the case is being re-opened, needless to say, the parties would be free to raise their respective contentions before this Court. The registry is directed to proceed further.Review petition allowed. *******