Hemavathi vs. V. Hombegowda,2023

Advertisements

Spread the love

Post Views: 384

CITATION	CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 5780-5781/2023(@ SLP (C) No(s). 19975-19976/2022)
DATE OF JUDGMENT	11 Seprtember,2023
COURT	Supreme Court of India
APPELLANT	HEMAVATHI & ORS.
RESPONDENT	V. HOMBEGOWDA & ANR.
BENCH	B.V. Nagarathna, Ujjal Bhuyan

Introduction

The case of Hemavathi vs. V. Hombegowda is a civil appeal that was heard in the Supreme Court of India. The case is a notable case that took place in the Indian Judicial system. The judgment was delivered by Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan on September 11, 2023. The case involves Hemavathi as an appellant and Hombegowda as a respondent. The case revolves around the question of whether a Regular Second Appeal, filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, could be allowed without framing substantial questions of law and without giving notice to all the concerned parties. The primary contention in the case was that the High Court had made several errors in allowing the appeal without proper adherence to legal procedures. The year 2023 signifies the year in which the case was heard or decided by the relevant court.

Facts of the Case

The appellants had initially filed an Original Suit seeking the relief of partition and separate possession of their respective shares in a property. The trial court had decreed the suit in their favor, granting each appellant a 1/4th share of the property. The defendants in the suit filed a Regular Appeal against this decision, but their appeal was dismissed due to a delay of 2945 days in filing it. As a result, the trial court’s judgment and decree remained intact.

The defendants then filed a Regular Second Appeal (RSA No. 291/2022) in the High Court of Karnataka, seeking the condonation of the delay in filing their appeal. The High Court allowed this appeal, condoned the delay, and remanded the case to the trial court for fresh adjudication. The High Court also directed the trial court to frame additional issues, if necessary, and to take on record the evidence of both parties. Additionally, it ordered that during the pendency of the suit, the parties should maintain the status quo regarding the possession and alienation of the property.

In response, the appellants, who were the plaintiffs in the original suit, filed a Review Petition (Review Petition No. 536/2022) challenging the High Court’s judgment. However, the review petition was dismissed.

Issues Raised

The main issues raised in the case were:

1. Whether the High Court erred in allowing the Regular Second Appeal without framing substantial questions of law?

2. Whether the High Court erred by not issuing notices to all concerned parties, thus not giving them an opportunity to be heard.

3. Whether the High Court was correct in condoning a delay of 2945 days in filing the Regular Appeal?

4. Whether the High Court’s decision to remand the case to the trial court was appropriate given that the first appellate court had not considered the Regular Appeal on its merits?

Appellants’ Contention

1. The appellants argued that the High Court had made several serious errors in its judgment. 2. They contended that the appeal should not have been allowed at the admission stage without framing substantial questions of law, as mandated by Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

3. They also highlighted that the High Court’s judgment did not indicate that all the relevant parties were heard, as some were not issued notices and had not been heard during the proceedings.

4. The appellants further argued that condoning the delay of 2945 days in filing the Regular Appeal was incorrect, especially when the first appellate court had already dismissed the appeal on the grounds of delay and laches.

5. They also criticized the High Court’s decision to remand the case to the trial court for fresh adjudication.

Respondents’ Contention

1. The senior counsel representing the first respondent, who was the appellant in the High Court’s Second Appeal, supported the High Court’s decision.

2. They argued that the remand to the trial court would provide an opportunity for all parties to present their case and that the issue of framing substantial questions of law could be addressed during the remand proceedings.

3. They believed that the High Court’s judgment should not be interfered with.

4. The counsel for the deceased second respondent requested that if the case was to be remanded, an opportunity should be given to the legal representatives of the deceased respondent to be brought on record to contest the appeals.

Judgment

1. The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and set aside the impugned judgment and order of the High Court.

2. The case was remanded to the High Court for reconsideration in accordance with the law and while being mindful of the flaws in the original judgment.

3. The Court also ordered that the legal representatives of the deceased second respondent should be brought on record.

4. The Court emphasized that the High Court’s failure to frame substantial questions of law, allowing the appeal without issuing notices to all concerned parties and condoning a significant delay in filing the Regular Appeal were serious procedural errors.

5. The Court highlighted the importance of following proper legal procedures, especially in cases involving second appeals.

Cases for References

During the judgment, the Supreme Court referred to several cases to support its conclusions, including Roop Singh v. Ram Singh, State Bank of India v. S.N. Goyal, Municipal Committee, Hoshiarpur v. Punjab SEB, Umerkhan v. Bismillabi, and Raghavendra Swamy Mutt v. Uttaradi Mutt.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Hemavathi vs. V. Hombegowda underscores the importance of adhering to legal procedures, especially in matters involving second appeals. The Court emphasized that substantial questions of law must be framed before allowing a Regular Second Appeal and that all parties should have the opportunity to be heard. The case was remanded to the High Court to be reconsidered in accordance with these principles, and the legal representatives of the deceased party were to be brought on record. The judgment serves as a reminder of the need for strict adherence to procedural rules in the legal system.

References