K. MADAN MOHAN RAO versus BHEEMRAO BASWANTHRAO PATIL & ORS.

Citation: [2022] 7 S.C.R. 425 · Decided: 26-09-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DINESH MAHESHWARI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
425
K. MADAN MOHAN RAO
v.
BHEEMRAO BASWANTHRAO PATIL & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 6972 of 2022)
SEPTEMBER 26, 2022
[DINESH MAHESHWARI AND BELA M. TRIVEDI, JJ.]
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Or. VII r. 11 – Allowing of
application u/Or.VII r.11 and rejection of Election petition by the
High Court – Non-availability of the reasoned order – Appellant
approached Supreme Court – Appellant pointed out that even after
more than three months, the reasoned order is still not available to
the parties – Held: An appeal, which could be preferred on the
question of law or fact, would also remain an empty formality for
the simple reason that neither determination of question of law nor
determination of any question of fact by the High Court for the
purpose of dealing with the application u/Or. VII r. 11 CPC is
available to the parties – A party to the litigation cannot be expected
to wait indefinitely for availability of the reasons for the order of
the Court – The order passed by the High Court, deserves to be
disapproved only for the reason that even until this date, the reasons
for the said order are not available with either of the parties nor
are available on the website of the High Court nor the copy of the
order has been supplied despite the parties having made the
applications seeking certified copy of the order – Impugned order
set aside and the matter restored for reconsideration.
State of Punjab and Others v. Jagdev Singh Talwandi
(1984) 1 SCC 596 : [1984] 2 SCR 50 – followed.
Anil Rai v. State of Bihar (2001) 7 SCC 318 : [2001] 1
Suppl. SCR 298 – relied on.
Case Law Reference
[2001] 1 Suppl. SCR 298
relied on
Para 9
[1984] 2 SCR 50
followed
Para 9
[2022] 7 S.C.R. 425
425
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
426
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 7 S.C.R.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 6972
of 2022.
From the Judgment and Order dated 15.06.2022 of the High Court
for Telangana at Hyderabad in I.A. No. 1/2020 in Election Petition No.
34/2019.
Dr. A. M. Singhvi, Sr. Adv., R. Anand Padmanabhan, Shashi
Bhushan Kumar, Advs. for the Appellant.
Harin P. Raval, Sr. Adv., Ms. Monalisa Kosaria, B. Shravanth
Shanker, B. Yeshwanth Raj, Srinivas Rao, N. Manohar, Advs. for the
Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.
1. The applications seeking exemption from filing the impugned
order dated 15.06.2022 and filing the petition without the impugned order
(I.A. No. 136063 of 2022 and I.A. No. 136061 of 2021) are allowed.
2. Leave granted.
3. In this appeal, essentially the grievance projected before us is
that an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’) moved in the Election Petition filed by the
present appellant in the High Court for Telangana at Hyderabad, was
taken up for consideration after a considerable delay and, after a
prolonged hearing, ultimately, the order was pronounced on 15.06.2022,
purportedly allowing the application and rejecting the election petition
filed by the present appellant but then, the reasoned order allowing the
application is not available as yet.
4. On the matter being taken up for consideration, learned senior
counsel has appeared for the contesting respondent i.e. respondent No.
1 in caveat.
5. It is pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the
contesting respondent that respondent Nos. 15 and 16 arrayed in this
appeal were ordered to be deleted from the array of parties by order
passed by the High Court on 17.02.2020. The submissions are taken
note of. Even otherwise, looking to the subject matter of this appeal,
service of notice on other respondents does not appear necessary and
stands dispensed with.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
427
6. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, we
have heard the matter finally at this stage itself.
7. Dr. Singhvi, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant
has referred to the background aspects relating to the proceedings in the
election petition and has also referred to the fact that in view of the
delay caused, the appellant had earlier approached this Court in SLP(C)
No. 4518 of 2021, where this Court granted liberty to the appellant to
make a request before the Chief Justice of the High Court in its order
dated 26.03.2021.
8. It has been pointed out that, after the said order dated 26.03.2021
and a request having been made to Hon’ble the Chief Justice of the
High Court, the matter was placed before another Hon’ble Judge and
was proceeded further but then, hearing on the ap

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