LexMAHADEV GOVIND GHARGE & OTHERS versus THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT, JAMKHANDI, KARNATAKA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2011) 8 S.C.R. 829 MAHADEV GOVIND GHARGE & OTHERS v. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT, JAMKHANDI, KARNATAKA (CIVIL Appeal No. 5094 of 2005) MAY 10, 2011 [ASOK KUMAR GANGULY AND SWATANTER KUMAR, JJ.] A B Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order XU, Rule 22 - C Interpretation of - Service of notice of hearing of appeal - Filing of cross-objections - Period of limitation - Commencement of - Condonation of delay - Held: The limitation of one month for filing cross-objection as provided under Order XU Rule 22 commences from the date of service D of notice on the respondent in the appeal or his pleader of the day fixed for hearing the appeal - The cross-objections are required to be filed within the period of one month from the date of service of such notice or within such further time as Appellate Court may see fit to allow depending upon the E facts and circumstances of the given case - Since Order XU Rule 22 itself provide for extension of time, the Courts would normally be inclined to condone the delay in the interest of justice unless and until the cross-objector is unable to furnish a reasonable or sufficient cause for seeking the leave of the F Court to file cross-objections beyond the statutory period of one month - In the instant case, the cross-objectors were caveators before the High Court and they were heard not only while passing of interim orders but the appeal itself was admitted in their presence - In the circumstances, one month G of prescribed period in terms of Order XL/ Rule 22 commenced from the date on which the High Court ordered that the appeal may be listed for hearing - As the period for filing the cross objection had long expired, application for 829 H 830 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 8 S.C.R. A condonation of delay was filed - High Court dismissed the application without recording any specific reasons as to why the averments of the cross-objector were disbelieved - In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the cross- objectors were able to show sufficient/reasonable cause for B grant of further time to file the cross objections beyond the period of one month in terms of Order XU Rule 22 - Delay in filing the cross-objections thus condoned. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908- Order XU, r.22- Cross- objections - Nature of - Held: Cross-objections within the C scheme of Order XU Rule 22 are to be treated as separate appeal and must be disposed of on same principles in accordance with the provisions of Order XU. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - s.148A - Rights of a D caveator - Held: The rights of a caveator are different from that of cross-objectors per se - A caveator has a right to be heard mandatorily for the purposes of passing of an interlocutory order - A caveator is to be heard· by the court before any interim order can be passed against him. E Procedural Law - Hearing of appeal - Stages of - Held: Hearing of the appeal can be classified in two different stages; one at the admission stage and the other at the final stage. Procedural Law - Date of hearing - Held: Date of hearing F has normally been defined as the date on which the court applies its mind to tf1e merits of the case - In a criminal matter the hearing of the case is said to be commenced by the Court only when it applie_s its mind to frame a charge etc. - Similarly, under civil law it is only when the Court actually G applies its mind to averments made by party/parties, it can be considered as hearing of the case - The date of hearing must not be confused with the expression 'step in the proceedings' - These are two different concepts of procedural law and have different connotation and application - What H may be a 'step in the proceeding', essentially, may not mean MAHADEV GOVIND GHARGE v. SPL. LAO UPPER KRISHNA 831 PROJECT JAMKHANDI, KARNATAKA a 'hearing' by the. Court - Necessary ingredients of 'hearing' A thus are application of mind by the court and address by the party to the suits. Procedural law - Purpose and interpretation of - Held: Justice between the parties to a case is the essence of 8 procedural law - Unless the statute expressly prohibits or put an embargo, the Courts would interpret the procedural law so as to achieve the ends of justice - Strict construction of a procedural law is called for where there is complete extinguishment of rights, as opposed to the cases where C discretion is ve
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.