SURESH CHANDRA NANHORYA versus RAJENDRA RAJAK AND ORS.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 177 · Decided: 14-09-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

SURESH CHANDRA NANHORYA 
A 
V. 
RAJENDRA RAJAK AND ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 14, 2006 
[ARIJIT PASAYAT AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANT A, JJ.] 
B 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908-Section 115-Civil Revision 
Application-High Court passed adverse order against appellant by only 
hearing the applicant's advocate without issuing any notice to the appellant- C 
Non-issuance of notice before disposal of Civil Revision-Propriety of-Held, 
improper-It is a clear violation of the principles of natural justice-
Administrative Law-Natural justice. 
While disposing of a Civil Revision Application under S.115, CPC, 
High Court passed adverse order against appellant by only hearing.the D 
applicant's advocate without issuing any notice to the appellant. Though 
Review application was filed specifically pointing out that no notice had 
been issued before disposal of the Civil Revision, High Court did not 
consider that aspect and dismissed the review application. Challenge in 
the present appeal is to the order passed by the High C:mrt in the Civil 
Revision as well as in the Review Application. 
E 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. A perusal of the High Court order itself shows that only 
the applicant's advocate was heard. There is also even no mention that 
any notice was issued to the appellant and/or it was served. An F 
adjudication adverse to him was done by disposal of Civil Revision without 
even issuance of notice before such adverse adjudication. It is a clear 
violation of the principles of natural justice. (179-EJ 
1.2. Natural justice is an inseparable ingredient of fairness and G 
reasonableness. It is even said that the principles of natural justice must 
be read into unoccupied interstices of the statute, unless there is a clear 
mandate to the contrary. Natural justice is the essence of fair adjudication, 
deeply rooted in tradition and conscience, to be ranked as fundamental. 
·The purpose of following the principles of natural justice is the prevention 
177 
H 
178 
SUPREME COUR r REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 
A of miscarriage of justice. (179-F; 180-BI 
Cooper v. Wandsworth Board of Works, (1963) 143 ER 414 and 
Mullooh v. Aberdeen, (1971( 2 All E.R. 1278, referred to. 
2. The orders passed by the High Court in the Civil Revision and 
B the Review Application are accordingly set aside and the matter is remitted 
to the High Court for fresh consideration on merits after due notice to 
the appellant. ( 180-C( 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4139 of2006. 
C 
From the Judgment and Order dated 23.4.2004 of the High Court of 
Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Jabalpur in M.C.C. No. 574/2004. 
Rajavenkatappa Naik, Raja Raghvendra Naik. S.K. Tandon and 
Rameshwar Prasac Goyal for the Appellant. 
D 
Anoop G. Chaudhari, June Chaudhari, K.K. Mohan, B.S. Banthia and 
E 
Vikrant Singh for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted. 
Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and order dated 7.2.2003 in 
Civil Revision No.144/2003 and the order dated 23.4.2004 in (Review 
Application) Misc. Civil No. 574/2004, passed by a learned Single Judge of 
Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur. 
F 
Though various points were urged in support of the appeal, the primary 
stand was that Civil Revision filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil 
Procedure, 1908 (in short the 'CPC') was allowed by the learned Single 
Judge even without issuing notice to the appellant. On knowing the order 
passed by learned Single Judge in the Civil Revision, the review application 
G was filed specifically pointing out that no notice had been issued before 
disposal of the Civil Revision. The High Court rejected the same as noted 
above. 
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in the review petition 
it was categorically mentioned that without notice the order dated 7 .2.2003 
H was passed. There is no finding recorded that any notice was in fact issued. 
SURESH CHANDRA NAN HOR YA v. RAJENDRA RAJ AK [PASAYA T, J.)179 
Unfortunately, the High Court did not consider this aspect and dismissed the A 
review application. It is also submitted that the revision was not maintainable. 
Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand submitted that 
though it may be a fact that notice was not issued before disposal of the Civil 
Revision yet the orders do not warrant any interference as a right position in 
law has been noted. 
B 
The order of the High Court reads as follows: 
"xxx 
xxx 
xxx 
The t

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