Ramlal
v.
Madan Gopal And Others
(Supreme Court Of India)
Civil Appeal No. 1644 Of 1992 | 09-04-1992
2. The sole ground which impresses us is that appellant did not have the advantage of pressing forth oral arguments through counsel before the Additional District Judge, Yamuna Nagar, hearing the appeal. The District Judge proceeded to decide the case on the basis of written arguments submitted by the parties. Oral arguments could not be advanced because there was a strike of the members of the bar who abstained from appearing in the Court. It is perhaps for this reason that the District Judge thought that it was expedient to decide the case on the basis of written arguments. But in our view the issue involved in this case was such that the efficacy of oral arguments could not be underestimated
3. Having regard to the special facts and circumstances of the case we think it proper that the view of the Additional District Judge should be reobtained before his decision of fact becomes binding in second appeal before the High Court. For this reason we set aside the impugned judgment and order of the High Court as also that of the Additional District Judge, Yamuna Nagar and remit the case back to the Additional District Judge for rehearing the appeal after giving opportunity to the parties counsel to address their arguments but subject to payment of Rs 5000 as costs. The Additional District Judge shall dispose of the appeal within a period of two months from today. Counsel for the parties are directed to appear before the Additional District Judge on 27-4-1992.
Advocates List
For
For Petitioner
- Shekhar Naphade
- Mahesh Agrawal
- Tarun Dua
For Respondent
- S. Vani
- B. Sunita Rao
- Sushil Kumar Pathak
Bench List
HON'BLE JUSTICE M. M. PUNCHI
HON'BLE JUSTICE S. C. AGRAWAL
Eq Citation
(1995) SUPPL. 4 SCC 655
LQ/SC/1992/317
HeadNote
Practice and Procedure — Oral arguments — Necessity of — Appellant did not have the advantage of pressing forth oral arguments through counsel before the Additional District Judge, hearing the appeal — District Judge proceeded to decide the case on the basis of written arguments submitted by the parties — Oral arguments could not be advanced because there was a strike of the members of the bar who abstained from appearing in the Court — Held, issue involved in this case was such that efficacy of oral arguments could not be underestimated — Having regard to the special facts and circumstances of the case, view of the Additional District Judge should be reobtained before his decision of fact becomes binding in second appeal before the High Court — Case remitted back to the Additional District Judge for rehearing the appeal after giving opportunity to the parties' counsel to address their arguments but subject to payment of Rs 5000 as costs
Deleting Note..
Are you sure you want to move this note to trash?
