|CORAM:||A.K. Sikri J., S. Abdul Nazeer J|
|COUNSEL:||M. R. Shah|
|DATE:||February 7, 2019 (Date of pronouncement)|
|DATE:||February 14, 2019 (Date of publication)|
|FILE:||Click here to download the file in pdf format|
|An adjournment cannot be sought on the ground that Counsel is out of station. The appeal has to be dismissed for non-prosecution. Under no circumstances, application for restoration shall be entertained|
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 9142-9144 OF 2010
RAM SIROMANI TRIPATHI & ORS. APPELLANT(S)
STATE OF U.P. & ORS. RESPONDENT(S)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6156 OF 2012
O R D E R
Mr. R.K. Ojha, learned counsel appears on behalf of the counsel for the appellants and submits that the learned counsel for the appellants is not present in the Court today. It is stated that he is out of station. This is no ground to seek adjournment. We therefore reject the request for adjournment. We have asked the learned counsel to argue the matter. He submits that he does not know anything about the case.
In these circumstances, we dismiss the appeals for non-prosecution.
We make it clear that since we have not found it to be a good ground for adjournment, under no circumstances, application for restoration shall be entertained.
…………………….J. (A.K. SIKRI) …………………….J. (S. ABDUL NAZEER) …………………….J.
FEBRUARY 7, 2019
ITEM NO.104 COURT NO.2 SECTION III-A
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Civil Appeal No(s). 9142-9144/2010 RAM SIROMANI TRIPATHI & ORS. Appellant(s) VERSUS STATE OF U.P. THROUGH SECRETARY & ORS. Respondent(s) (TO GO BEFORE THREE HON’BLE JUDGES) (IA 166154/2018-EARLY HEARING APPLICATION) WITH C.A. No. 6156/2012 (III-A) (IA 166157/2018-EARLY HEARING APPLICATION)
Date : 07-02-2019 These matters were called on for hearing today.
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. ABDUL NAZEER
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE
M.R. SHAH For Appellant(s) Mr. R.K. Ojha, Adv.
For Mr. Balraj Dewan, AOR (N.P.) Dr. Vinod Kumar Tewari, AOR (N.P.) For Respondent(s) Mr. Pramod Swarup, Sr. Adv.
Ms. Prerna Swarup, Adv.
Ms. Alka Sinha, Adv.
Mr. Ravindra Kumar, AOR Mr. Anuvrat Sharma, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
The appeals are dismissed for non-prosecution in terms of the signed order. We make it clear that since we have not found it to be a good ground for adjournment, under no circumstances, application for restoration shall be entertained.
(SUSHIL KUMAR RAKHEJA) (INDU KUMARI POKHRIYAL)
AR CUM PS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
(Signed order is placed on the file.)
With due respect, what justice the petitioner got delivered in this order? What is fault of the petitioner?
Very harsh decision at the cost of denial of justice and opportunity to the petitioner.
Should be very careful with this ruling. Now all tribunals and courts may follow this ruling left and right and may reject appeals. Draconian.
Even I agree that for the Appellant the decision is very harsh. It appears that the Hon. SC has been harsh on the appellant. There have been multiple cases where the Hon. SC has condoned huge delays on filing of the appeals by the Govt./Dept. and has till date gone with the principle that such technicalities should not come in way of Justice Delivery.
I fully agree with the comments of Harish Lalwani. Though I do not know what lead the apex court to deliver such decision, on the face of it, by reading a small portion of judgement, it looks very indifferent.
This is very much valid reason that counsel is out of country, ill or busy in any other matter. It may happen with each and every person including hon`ble judges. Decision is harsh and able to open the door against every citizen,in case of proceeding in scrutiny and appeals at lower level. But, in case of repetitive attitude of appellant is noticed than the decision is appeared to be reasonable.
i think Honble SC in its wisdom passed on a right decision. It is a flimsy ground that counsel is out of station, sick etc. The appellant must make arrangement for another Lawyer when he knows his counsel’s absence. Moreoever, any case being heard at SC has not only one Adv there are more than one Adv who can pursue and argue the case before SC bench.
Such HARSH decisions required to discipline Lawyers and also appellants; it will reduce pendency before SC and other courts as well.
This type of harsh and illogical judgement can never be expected from the Supreme Court. The judges first of all ought to have granted adjournment. And even if they did not grant adjournment, they ought to have kept issue of restoration of the appeals. In any event they ought have decided the appeals on the merits of the case.
The Hon. should have passed strictures against the erring lawyer but it is too harsh to punish the petitioner for the lapse on the part of his counsel. The SC Bar Association should take up the matter for a review of the judgment and for disciplinary action against the erring lawyer.
the seriousness of the appellants are established if you look at the 2 early hearing applications filed.also there are number of high profile national/intl leaders are living with bails and pendency of many case almost for life time !! i really wonder Name/Names of advocates does matter in the justice delivery ???
In my opinion instead of dismissing for non-prosecution the Hon. Court should have decided the appeal on its own merits or demerits.