LexVIPIN KUMAR versus JAYDEEP & OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 1659 : 2025 INSC 169 Vipin Kumar v. Jaydeep & Others (Civil Appeal No. 2225 of 2025) 21 January 2025 [B.V. Nagarathna* and Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Whether there has been a miscarriage of justice as the second appeal was allowed ex parte without hearing the appellant and without framing any substantial questions of law. Headnotes† Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – s.100 – Second appeal (S.A. No.140/2016) was allowed ex parte vide order dated 01.07.2019 without hearing the appellant-defendant no.3 and without formulating any substantial question of law – Review thereagainst was dismissed vide order dated 11.10.2019 – By way of the impugned order, High Court rejected the application seeking recall of the said order: Held: Appellant who was the successful defendant before the Trial Court as well as the first Appellate Court was not served in the second appeal by the High Court in S.A. No.140/2016 which was filed by the respondent no.1-plaintiff – There has been a miscarriage of justice as the appellant was not heard in second appeal and it was allowed without framing any substantial question of law at all – Therefore, there has been an error in passing of the judgment dated 01.07.2019 by the High Court in S.A. No.140/2016 – Further, the dismissal of the Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.41568/2019, filed against the judgment in the Second Appeal, as well as the Review Petition (Diary) No. 56394/2024 by this Court would not come in the way of the reconsideration of the second appeal by the High Court – In the peculiar facts of this case, the impugned order dated 05.01.2021, 11.10.2019 and judgment dated 01.07.2019 are set aside – S.A. No.140/2016 is restored on the file of the High Court. [Paras 27-30] * Author 1660 [2025] 1 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports Case Law Cited Hemavathi v. V. Hombegowda [2023] 12 SCR 477 : 2023 SCC Online SC 1206; Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala [2000] Supp. 1 SCR 538 : AIR 2000 SC 2587 – relied on. A.V. Papayya Sastry v. Govt. of A.P. [2007] 3 SCR 603 : (2007) 4 SCC 221 – referred to. List of Acts Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Right to Information Act, 2005. List of Keywords Second appeal; Substantial question of laws not framed; Second appeal allowed ex parte; Miscarriage of justice; Dealership/ distributorship; Rajiv Gandhi Rural LPG Gas Distributor; Domicile certificate; Second Review Petition; Fraud; Non-speaking or speaking order; Doctrine of merger; Order refusing special leave to appeal. Case Arising From CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2225 of 2025 From the Judgment and Order dated 05.01.2021 of the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital in MCC No. 12090 of 2021 Appearances for Parties Devadatt Kamat, Sr. Adv., Ms. Devyani Gupta, Ms. Tanvi Anand, Revanta Solanki, Hruday Bajentri, Advs. for the Appellant. Gunnam Venkateswara Rao, Poli Naidu Vudamala, Mrs. Priya Puri, Sachin Dubey, Mrs. Pinki Aggarwal, Sharad Kumar Puri, Vibhav Srivastava, Ashutosh Kumar Sharma, Ajay Kumar Bahuguna, Advs. for the Respondents. Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Judgment Nagarathna, J. Leave granted. 2. Being aggrieved by the order dated 05.01.2021 passed by the High Court of Uttarakhand in MCC No.12090 of 2021 by which the [2025] 1 S.C.R. 1661 Vipin Kumar v. Jaydeep & Others application seeking recall of the order dated 11.10.2019 (passed in Review Application No.708/2019 which was filed in S.A. No.140/2016 which appeal was allowed by order dated 01.07.2019) was rejected, the appellant has preferred this appeal. 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are as under. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to in terms of their status and position before the Trial Court while narrating the facts. However, they have also been referred to as appellant (defendant no.3); respondent no.1 (plaintiff); respondent no.2 (defendant no.1); respondent no.3 (Union of India); and, respondent no.4. (Tehsildar). The plaintiff is stated to be a permanent resident of Village Fakarhedi, Tejupur. Defendant No.1, through a daily newspaper Amar Ujala dated 21.01.2011 invited applications for the appointment of a Rajiv Gandhi Rural LPG distributor for Village Chudiyala, Tejupur, Tehsil Roorkee, District Haridwar, in the State of Uttarakhand. The application stated that the applicants who met the conditions mentioned in the advertisement could submit their applications by 23.02.2011. The eligibility criteria
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.