SC: Special Powers of CJ to assign Review Application to single Judge where Concerned Judge is unavailable

 

On 10 November 2022, the Supreme Court in a Division Bench comprising of Justice Aniruddha Bose and Justice Vikram Nath observed that proviso to Rule 3(1) of Chapter XXX of the Rules of the Court applicable for the Bombay High Court confers this 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. (Suresh G. Ramnani Vs. Aurelia Ana De Piedade Miranda @ Ariya Alvares (Dead THR. LRS) & Ors.)

Facts of the Case:

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 decree, appellant preferred an appeal under section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, 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” which was initially dismissed. The second appeal under section 100 CPC was preferred by the appellant which was allowed. The HC remanded the matter to the First Appellate Court for a fresh decision after which it was again dismissed. Hence, second appeal was preferred in the HC of Bombay at Panaji, Goa, titled “Mr. Suresh G. Ramnani vs. Mrs. Aurelia Ana da Piedade Miranda alias Araiyo Alvares and others”. In the second appeal judgment was reserved by Justice G.S. Patel, who at that time was sitting at the Goa Bench of the Bombay HC. Justice Patel returned to the Principal Bench at Bombay on 24.10.2017. on 01.11.2017, certain clarifications were made before the Court by the parties through Hybrid mode regarding the issue of whether the parties are arriving at a settlement or not. The second appeal was allowed and judgment was s delivered through virtual mode by the learned Judge while sitting at Bombay. A review petition was filed by respondent, listed before Justice Nutan D. Sardessai, and was admitted. The appellants moved an application to transfer the place the civil review before Justice G.S. Patel for final disposal. The same was rejected by Justice Prithviraj K. Chavan, hence the present appeal. 

 

Contentions of the Appellants: 

The counsel for the appellants submitted that “t review petition should be heard by the same Hon’ble Judge under the provisions of Order 47 Rule 5 of the CPC read with High Court amendments made thereunder for the State of Maharashtra.” Attention was drawn to Chapter XXX Rule 3(1) of the Rules of the Court applicable for the Bombay High Court stating that “it should be heard by the same Judge, however, subject to certain situations where such Judge has ceased to be Judge of the High Court or have ceased to sit at the particular Bench, in that event, it would be placed before the Regular Court of the single Judge dealing with that category of the matter.” Rule 3(1) of Chapter XXX was also referred submitting that “Rules having been framed more than 25 years back and considering the advancement of technology and present setup available for virtual hearing through video conferencing and the same Judge being available at the principal seat of the Bombay High Court, the review should have been heard by the same judge.” Case of Malthesh Gudda Pooja vs. State of Karnataka was referred.

 

Contentions of the Respondents: 

The counsel for the respondents submitted that “appellant ought not to have carried the matter to this court where the proceedings were being conducted as per the Rules. as Justice Patel was no longer sitting at the Goa Bench, Review Petition had to be heard by the Judge having roster of the said categories of the matters to which the proceedings relate i.e., the learned Judge at the Goa Bench hearing second appeals.” Cases, Goel Ganga Developers India Pvt. Ltd., Maharashtra Housing & Development Authority vs. P V Anturkar and Ratanlal Nahata v. Nandita Bose were referred.  

Observations and Judgment of the Court:

The hon’ble court observed that “we find the matter does not raise any factual issue, but it is only a question of interpretation of the Rules, the Court’s propriety and jurisdiction. We are e of the view that considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, 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. The proviso to Rule 3(1) of Chapter XXX of the Rules confers this 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 as aforesaid i.e., where he had ceased to sit at a particular Bench. The Chief Justice, being the master of roster and being conferred with specific powers of assigning review petitions in given circumstances under the Rules, the learned single Judge ought not to have dealt with the application but should have referred the matter to be placed before the Chief Justice.”

The appeal was allowed, setting aside the Impugned Order rejecting the Civil application. The registry of the High Court was directed to place the application before the Hon’ble Chief Justice. 

 

Case: Suresh G. Ramnani Vs. Aurelia Ana De Piedade Miranda @ Ariya Alvares (Dead THR. LRS) & Ors.

Citation: CIVIL APPEAL NO.__ OF 2022 (Arising out of SLP (CIVIL) NO. 20623 of 2019)

 

Bench: of Justice Aniruddha Bose and Justice Vikram Nath

Date: November 10, 2022. 

Social media is bold. 

Social media is young.

Social media raises questions.

 Social media is not satisfied with an answer.

Social media looks at the big picture.

 Social media is interested in every detail.

social media is curious.

 Social media is free.

Social media is irreplaceable.

But never irrelevant.

Social media is you.

(With input from news agency language)

 If you like this story, share it with a friend!   

We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our journalism free from government and corporate pressure