STATE OF RAJASTHANversusSEVA RAM AND ORS.
- Citation
- 1996 INSC 173
- Decided
- 2 February 1996
- Disposal
- Disposed off
Holding
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court order and remitted the matter to the High Court for disposal along with the pending appeals, as per its earlier decision in C.A. 3204/95.
Summary
The Supreme Court entertained a petition under Article 136 of the Constitution, noting that the controversy was already covered by its earlier order in C.A. 3204/95 where delay was condoned and the matter was remitted to the High Court. Accordingly, the Court set aside the Rajasthan High Court’s order dated 12 January 1994 and directed that the case be remitted to the High Court for disposal together with the pending appeals, if those appeals had not yet been decided. The Court observed that if the pending appeals were already disposed of, the ratio of those decisions would govern the present appeal. No costs were awarded and the appeal was disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether the Supreme Court should set aside the High Court’s order and remit the matter for disposal along with pending appeals.
- Whether the appeal should be dismissed on procedural grounds under Article 136.
Legislation cited
- Constitution of Indias. Art. 136
Subjects
Judgment
STATE OF RATASTHAN A
v.
SEVA RAM AND ORS.
FEBRUARY 2, 1996
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] B
Constitution of India, 1950:
Art. 136-Grant of special leave-Matters covered by an earlier
decision, remitting the matter to High Court-Accordingly in tlze present C
matter also, order of High Cowt set aside and matter remitted to High Cowt
for disposal along with pending appeals-If these appeals are already dis-
posed of, the ratio therein would govern the present case.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3427 of D
1996.
From the Judgment and Order dated 12.1.94 of the Rajasthan High
Court in D.B.C.S.A No. 568 of 1992.
Aruneshwar Gupta for the Appellants. E
AP. Medh, Pallav Shishodia for the Respondents.
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
Mr. Medh, Advocate appears for respondent No. 1. Respondent F
Nos. 2 and 3, though served, are not appearing either in person or through
counsel.
Leave granted.
The controversy raised is covered by the order of this Court in C.A. G
3204/95 and batch dated 28.2.1995 wherein delay was condoned and mat-
ters were remitted to the High Court for disposal along with the pending
appeals for decision on merits. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the
High Court and remit this matter to the High Court for disposal along with
the pending appeals, if not already disposed of. H
81
82 SUPREME COURT REPORTS · (1996) 2 S.C.R.
. . \ . . .
A. If they are disposed of, the ratio therein may gover~ the controversy
in thi• appeal.
. Appeal i• di•posed of in above terms. No costs.
G.N. Appeal disposed of.
. ' .
·.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.