2013 INSC 0379
                             SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                                         Shakuntalabai

                                                Vs.

                                   Nanaji Dewaji Wadaskar

                                     C.A.No.3958 of 2013

                  (Surinder Singh Nijjar and Pinaki Chandra Ghose JJ.)

                                           22.04.2013

                                             ORDER

1. Delay condoned in application for restoration of special leave petition qua
respondent Nos. 1 and 3. For the reasons stated in the application, it is allowed and
the special leave petition is restored qua respondent Nos. 1 and 3.

2. Leave granted.

3. The impugned order has been passed by the High Court assuming that the appeal
before the High Court was a Second Appeal. This is patent from the judgment
itself which mentions that the decision is rendered in Second Appeal No.339 of
2009. It has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants that, in fact,
the Court was seized only of the First Appeal. This submission of the learned
counsel is borne out from the grounds of appeal submitted before the High Court
which mention First Appeal No.339 of 2009.

4. A perusal of the judgment passed by the High Court shows that none of the
submissions made by the appellants before the High Court have been considered.
Furthermore, the judgment does not indicate the reasons for the conclusions
recorded in the judgment.

5. In view of the above, the judgment of the High Court is not sustainable. The
appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside. The
matter is remanded back to the High Court for a decision on merits after giving due
opportunity of hearing to all the parties. No costs.

Law Information Center  1  SpotLaw
Law Information Center  2  SpotLaw