ISHWARI PRASAD MISHRA versus MOHAMMAD ISA

Citation: [1963] 3 S.C.R. 722 · Decided: 27-08-1962 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 5 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

Mada• C.p>I 
v, 
Stlll• ti PunJol 
Shoh J. 
722 
SUPREME OOURT REPORTS [1003] 
punitive action including dismissal or removal from 
serviee if the appellant· was found to have committed 
the misdemeanour charged against him. Such an 
enquiry and order consequent upon the report made 
in the enquiry will not fall within the principle of 
Ram Narayan Das's case('). 
The appeal is therefore allowed·and the order 
passed by the High Court is set aside and the order 
passed by Mr. Justice BishanNarain is restored with 
costs in this Court and the High Court, 
: Appeal allowed. · 
ISHWARI PRASAD MISHRA 
v. 
MOHAMMAD ISA 
(P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR. K. C. DAB GUPTA and 
RAGHUBAR DAYAL, JJ,) 
Appellate Oourt-Duty of the appellate Jutiges in dealing 
with the Judgment of the lower court -Criticism of the trial JudY 
or the witneases-Extravagant language to be avoided. 
In a suit instituted by the appellant for the specific 
performance of an agreement of sale executed by the respon-
dent, the latter disputed the genuineness and validity of the 
agreement and its considration. The trial court decreed the · 
suit but on appeal the High Court reversed the findings of 
the trial court and dismissed the suit. In the appeal filed by 
the appellant, the Supreme Court went into the evidence in 
the case elaborately and came to the conclusion that the 
decision of the trial cotJrt that the suit agreement was genuine 
and valid and was supported by consideration, was right and 
that the High Court erred in reversing that decision. In the 
Judgement delivered by it, the High Court had passed severe 
strictures against the trial court suggesting that the decision 
of the trial court was based on extraneous considerations. 
\I) (1958) S.C.R. 828. 
• 
• 
3 S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
723 
Similarly, the High Court made some observations criticizing 
some of the witnesses examined in the case suggesting that 
they had consipired to give false evidence. The Supreme 
Court after carefully considering the matter fully was satisfied . 
that the imputations made by the High Court against the 
impartiality and the objectivity of the approach .adopted 
by the trial Judge \\ere wholly unjustified. 
Hel<l, that the High Court erred in using extravagant 
language in criticizing the trial court; that the use of strong 
language and imputation of corrupt motives should not be 
made light-heartedly because the Judge against whom the 
imputations are made has no remedy in law to vindicate his 
position. 
Held, further, that the -High Court was, similarly, in 
error iri its criticism of some the witnesses examindin the case 
as showing a tendency to regard every witness whose evidence 
the High Court did not feel inclined to accept, as a perjuror 
and a conspirator. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal 
No. 630 of 1960. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment 
and decree dated September 29, 1959, of the Patna 
• 
High Court in Appeal from Original Decree No. 290 
of 1953. 
· 
O. K. Daphtary, Bolictor·General of India, 
L. K. Jha. Suhodh Kumar Jha and R. O. Prasad for 
the appellant. 
· 
A. V •. Viswanatha Sastri. D. P. Singh, M. K. 
Ramamurthi, R. K. Garg and 8. 0. Agarwal for the 
respondent. 
1962. August. 27. The Judgmenb. of the Coutt 
was delivered by 
· 
GAJENDRAGADKAR, J.-The appellent Pandit 
Ishweri Prasad Mishra sued the respondent Moham-
mad Isa for the specific performance of ·an agree-
ment,. of sale executed by him on the 18th May, 
1950,in the Court of the 1st Additional Sub-JudC1e .. ' 
lshwari Prtu•tl. 
Mishra 
v •• 
MohmnmaJ Is« 
Gajendra1adkar J, 
1962 
lJh'w'l:r i 8rarai ' 
MiJhr• 
•• 
~Vahhmtncd ls• 
724 
SUPREME C~URT REPORTS (1963] 
Muzeffarpur. By the Bitid agreement, the respon-
dent had promised to execute a sale-deed in favour 
of the appellant in respect of his house situated at 
Sitamarhi Bazar, Sitamarhi. The appellant's claim 
was decreed by the trial Court which ordered the 
respondent to execute a sale-deed within a month 
from the date of the decree on receipt of Rs. 4,000/-
which is the balance of consideration remainig to be 
paid to him. The respondent challenged this decree 
by an appeal before the Patna High Court, and his 
challenge has succeeded. In the result, the decree 
passed by the trial Court was reversed and the 
appellant's suit dismissed with costs throughout. It 
is against ,this decree that the appellant has come to 
this Court with a certificate issued by the .Patna. 
High Court; and so, the pri

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.