SURESH G. RAMNANI versus AURELIA ANA DE PIEDADE MIRANDA @ ARIYA ALVARES (DEAD THR. LRS) & ORS.

Citation: [2022] 10 S.C.R. 69 · Decided: 10-11-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ANIRUDDHA BOSE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
69
SURESH G. RAMNANI
v.
AURELIA ANA DE PIEDADE MIRANDA @ ARIYA
ALVARES (DEAD THR. LRS) & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 8293 of 2022)
NOVEMBER 10, 2022
[ANIRUDDHA BOSE AND VIKRAM NATH, JJ.]
Judicial propriety: Application seeking hearing of review by
a particular judge – Matter to be placed on the administrative side
or order to be passed on judicial side – Held: Once an application
was preferred by any of the parties that a review may be heard by
the Judge who had decided the matter and had passed the order
from which the review arose, the matter ought to have been placed
before the Chief Justice on the administrative side rather than order
being passed on the judicial side – Proviso to r. 3(1) of Chapter
XXX of the Rules confers power on the Chief Justice to assign a
particular matter to a Single Judge for hearing of the review
application where the Single Judge concerned was not available
for the time being by reason of being on leave or otherwise where
he had ceased to sit at a particular Bench – Chief Justice, being the
master of roster and being conferred with specific powers of
assigning review petitions in given circumstances under the Rules –
On facts, the Single Judge ought not to have dealt with the
application but should have referred the matter to be placed before
the Chief Justice – In view thereof, direction to the Registry of the
High Court to place the application on the administrative side before
the Hon’ble Chief Justice for appropriate orders – Bombay High
Court Rules – Chapter XXX, r 3(1) – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
– Ord. 47 r. 5.
Malthesh Gudda Pooja v. State of Karnataka (2011)
15 SCC 330; Goel Ganga Developers India Pvt. Ltd. v.
Union of India through Secretary Ministry of
Environment and Forests and others (2018) 18 SCC
257; Maharashtra Housing & Development Authority
v. P V Anturkar (2009) 3 Mh Lj 266; Ratanlal Nahata
v. Nandita Bose (1998) 3 CALLT 348 HC – referred
to.
[2022] 10 S.C.R. 69
69
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
70
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 10 S.C.R.
Case Law Reference
(2011) 15 SCC 330
referred to
Para 13
(2018) 18 SCC 257
referred to
Para 13
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 8293
of 2022.
From the Judgment and Order dated 16.07.2019 of the High Court
of Bombay at Goa in Misc. Civil Application No.526 of 2019 in Civil
Application (Review) No.7 of 2019 in Second Appeal No. 98 of 2013.
Huzafa Ahmed, Sr. Adv., Aman Vachher, Dhiraj, Ashutosh Dubey,
Mrs. Anshu Vachher, Abhishek Chauhan, Akshat Vachher, M/s Vachher
and Agrud, Advs. for the Appellant.
Nakul Dewan, Sr. Adv. and Chirag M. Shroff, Adv. for the
Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
VIKRAM NATH, J.
Leave granted.
2. This is defendant’s appeal assailing the correctness of the order
dated 16.07.2019 passed by Justice Prithviraj K. Chavan, rejecting the
Misc. Civil Application No.526 of 2019 in Civil Application (Review)
No.7 of 2019. The order reads as under:
“Heard Mr. M. Amonkar, learned Advocate for the applicant.
2. In view of the clause (3) of Chapter 13 of the Bombay High
Court Appellate Side Rules prayer (a) of the application cannot
be granted.
3. Mr. N. Fernandes, learned Counsel submits that matter be placed
after 5th October, 2019.
4. At his request, stand over to 07.10.2019’’
3. A bare reading of the impugned order extracted above would
raise a hundred doubts in the mind as to why this petition has been filed.
However trivial, we may consider the issue at hand, but considering the
seriousness and the length of arguments advanced by the learned Senior
Counsels, we were compelled to reserve the judgment and give a serious
thought to the issue.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
71
FACTS
4. The respondent instituted a suit on 11.01.1985 for declaration
and permanent injunction registered as Regular Suit No.21 of 1985 in
the court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, at Margao titled “Mrs. Aurelia
Ana da Piedade Miranda Araujo Alvares and others vs. Mr. Gobindram
Jethanand Ramnani and others”. After the contest, the Trial Court decreed
the suit vide judgment and order dated 26.08.2003. The appellant preferred
an appeal under section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure, 19081, in the
court of District Judge at Margao, Goa, registered as Regular Civil Appeal
No.83 of 2013, titled “Mr. Suresh G. Ramnani Vs. Mrs. Aurelia Ana da
Piedade Miranda alias Araiyo Alvares and others”. This appeal initially
came to be dismissed vide judgment and order dated 22.04.2008. The
second appeal under section 100 CPC was preferred by the

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