BHAGWANDAS FATECHAND DASWANI AND ORS. versus H.P.A. INTERNATIONAL AND ORS.

Citation: [2000] 1 S.C.R. 254 · Decided: 13-01-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.N. KHARE, N. SANTOSH HEGDE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
BHAGWANDAS FATECHAND DASWANI AND ORS. 
v. 
H.P.A. INTERNATIONAL AND ORS. 
JANUARY 13, 2000 
B 
[V.N. KHARE AND N. SANTOSH HEGDE, JJ.J 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 : Order XX Rule I. 
Judgment-Long delay in delivery-Effect of 
c 
Respondent No. 2 entered into agreement with respondent No. I for 
transfer of property-Thereafter reJpondent No. 2 tramfe"ed the rights in 
favour of appellant~-Suit for specific perfonnance filed by reJpondent No. 1 
decreed by trial court-Appeal before High Court-Judgment delivered by 
High Court after five years of conclusion of hearing of appeal-Appeal before 
D Supreme Court-Question whether long delay in delivery of judgment is 
sufficient to set aside the impugned judgment left open--However, long delay 
in judgment gives rise to unnecessary Jpecu/ation in the mind of partie~-Ap
pellants may have apprehension that arguments raised at bar have not been 
reflected while dictating judgment-Impugned judgment set aside-Matter 
E remitted to High Court for decision afresh on merits. 
Kunwar Singh & Ors. v. Sri 1hakurji Maharaj, [1995] Supp. 4 SCC 
125, referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 7386 of 
F 1994. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 24.L94 of the Madras High 
Court in O.SA. No. 202 of 1988. 
G 
Soli J. Sorabjce, Attorney General, H.N. Salve, S. Ganesh, P.H. 
Pan:kh, Amit Dhingra, Jayesh Dolia, Harish, Y. Shankar, Sameer Parekh, 
V. Balaehandran, Raju Ramaehandran, Joseph Pookkat, RA. Perumal, 
N.C. Ramesh and N.S. Varadaehari for the appellants. 
K. Parasaran, V. Balachandran S. Aravindh, Santhil Jagadeesan, V. 
H Rama Subramaniam and T .K. Sharedri for the Respondents. 
254 
B. F. DAS W ANI v. H.P .A INTERNATIONAL 
255 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
The defendant-appellants, who are the subsequent purchasers, arc in 
appeal. This appeal is directed against thi: judgment of Madras High Court 
dated 24th January, 1994 when:by the dt:cree for spi:cific performance of 
the agreement passed by the trial court was affirmed. 
On 26th June, 1977 respondent No. 2 entered into an agreement with 
first ri:spondcnt hi:rcin, for transfer of bis life interest in the property in 
dispute. On 29.12.79, respondent No. 2 transferred the rights in favour of 
the dt:fendant-appellants who are the subsequent purchasi:rs for considera-
tion of Rs. 4.40 lakhs. Under such circumstances, plaintiff-respondent No. 
1 brought a suit for specific performance, which was decreed by the trial 
court and the appeal preferrt:d to the High Court was dismissed. It is in 
this way the ddendant-appellants are before us. 
A 
B 
c 
Learned Attorney Gt:neral appearing for the appellants urged that, 
bcfori: the High Court, the hearing of the appeal was concluded on 22nd D 
March, 1989 but the judgmt:nt was delivtred on 24th January, 1994 - nearly 
five years aftt:r the hearing was concludt:d, and this long delay in delivt:ry 
of judgment by itself is sufficient to set aside the judgment under appeal. 
Learned Attorney General has also relied upon decision of this Court in 
the case of K.unwar Singh and Others v. Sri Thakurji Maharaj, [1995] Supp. 
4 SCC 125. At presi:nt, we are not deposed to go into this broad qut:stion 
as urged by the learned Attorney General. Howewr, it is correct to this 
extent that long dt:!ay in delivery of judgment gives rise to unnecessary 
speculations in the mind of parties to a case. Moreover, the appellants 
whose appeals have been dismissed by the High Court may have the 
apprehension that the argumt:nts raised at the bar havt: not been reflected 
or appreciated while dictating the judgment - nearly after five years. This 
is fairly not disputed by learned senior counsel, Shri K. Parasaran, appear-
ing for respondent No. l. Wt:, therefon:, on this short question, set aside 
tht: judgment under appt:al without expressing any opinion on the merits 
E 
F 
of the cast: and remit the case to the High Court for deciding the appt:al G 
afrt:sh, on merits. In view of the fact, that the matter has been pending for 
a considerable period of time, we request the High Court to decide the 
matter expeditiously, if possible, within six months. 
Bdore we part with the case, we would like to observe that when this 
appt:al was filed in this Court, the interim relief prayed for by the appel-
H 
256 
SUPREME COURT RHORTS 
(2!XXl] 1 S.C.R. 
A !ants was refused. As a consequence, respondent No. 2 executed a sale 
deed in favour of respondent No. 1, and responde
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.