SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

7 January, 2019

Court – Procedure - Regular Second Appeal - High Court did not discuss nor dealt with any issues arising in the case nor dealt with any submissions urged by the appellant with a view to show as to how and on what basis the findings impugned in the second appeal were bad in law and why the appeal did not involve any substantial question(s) of law – Case remanded - High Court will admit the second appeal by framing proper substantial question(s) of law arising in the case as required under Section 100 of the Code and then after issuing notice of the appeal alongwith a copy of substantial question of law framed to the respondent (plaintiff) will decide the second appeal on merits by answering the questions framed in accordance with law - CPC, 1908 (V of 1908) Section 100. 2019 SCeJ 63

1.         Court - Casting unfounded aspersions on the Court simply because the Court has expressed its opinion in the matters which in any case has been challenged in appeal as per the right available to the aggrieved persons - If such tendencies are encouraged it would strike at the very foundation of the roster system leading to institutional collapse - It would be absolutely easy for any litigant or member of the public to simply stand up and raise doubts about the credibility of the Court forcing it to release the case from its roster and thus playing into the hands of the individuals who are interested in bench hunting, aided and advised by their counsels - The Court thus does not wish to succumb to such pressure tactics. (182) PLR
2.         Court - If the two decisions of equal strength of higher forum take diametrically conflicting views, a subordinate court shall attempt to harmonize to the extent possible a view that will not conflict with the propositions of either case. (182) PLR
3.         Court - Recall of order - It is evident that earlier the application for additional evidence had been allowed but thereafter, after scoring off the same by hand, it has been rejected - Had there been any doubt in the mind of the Court below, it could have fixed the matter for re-hearing and not in the manner and mode which has been adopted - Trial Court should not have adopted the manner which has been noticed above - The trial Court was having doubt could have sought clarification, and fixed the matter for re-hearing despite pronouncing the order in the Court but it could not recall the same at the back of the parties - The Presiding Officer is advised to be more vigilant and wary. (182) PLR
4.         Court - Record of the Court has a sanctity attached to it and can be disputed only before the same Court, who has passed the zimini orders that too on the basis of affidavit - In case, the PLA has wrongly passed the zimini orders, the petitioner should have approached the PLA at that time when the zimini orders were being passed but now they cannot make any application - Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (3 of 1987) S. 22C(8).  (180) PLR
5.         Court - Record Procedure - Regarding filing of application - Grievance of the petitioner is that the application, which already stood decided, could not be taken up again and dismissed, which had earlier been allowed - Anomalous situation - Directions issued. (180) PLR
6. Courts - Orders - From the zimni orders recorded by the trial Court, one thing is clear that the case was handled in a most casual manner and it appears that the zimni orders were not even recorded by the Presiding Officer himself because he was not even aware as to whether the case is listed for the evidence of the plaintiffs or the defendants - Moreover, the learned Court below has not even cared to abide by the directions issued by this  Court - Still recorded the zimni orders in a casual manner without recording the names of the advocates who had appeared on behalf of the parties which again shows the casualness in recording the zimni orders which otherwise are most important part of the record as it reflects the proceedings carried out before the Court on a particular day - Petition allowed. (178) PLR
7.         Courts - We still see in several judgments, subordinate courts referring to the judgments of various parts of India without knowing views of its own High Court to which it is subordinate - There is nothing inherently wrong in keeping the mind open to allow for knowledge to come from all directions but if it is closing its own window of knowledge by not knowing what its High Court itself was stating on issues of trial, it will only give rise to half baked judgments, the way it has happened in this case.  (182) PLR
8.