Skip to content


Jasbir Singh Dhillon Vs. Union of India and Others - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectService
CourtSupreme Court of India
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Appeal No. 207 of 1981
Judge
Reported inAIR1981SC1765; 1981LabIC1579; (1981)3SCC595; 1981(13)LC704(SC)
AppellantJasbir Singh Dhillon
RespondentUnion of India and Others
Excerpt:
- indian evidence act, 1872 section 3: [s.b.sinha & asok kumar ganguly,jj] reliability of eye-witnesses murder - incident taking place in front of house of deceased held, eye-witnesses being family members of deceased, their presence at spot is natural. when evidence given by eye-witnesses were consistent, reliance can be placed on evidence of eye-witnesses irrespective of fact that there was some enmity. section 3 : related witnesses - eye-witnesses were relatives of deceased held, relationship by itself cannot be a ground to discredit their evidence. moreso, when deceased was murdered by his cousin. section 3: non-explanation of injuries on accused - injuries on accused not brought on record - accused not also raising any defence plea held, non-explanation of..........should be dismissed in limine or a rule should be issued the matter was referred to a third learned judge who, on november 11, 1980, passed an order dismissing the writ petition in limine. by this appeal the appellant seeks relief against the dismissal of the writ petition. 2. it seems to us that this is a case which should not have been dismissed in limine by the high court. the high court should have issued a rule and after hearing the parties on the questions arising in the case, should have disposed it of in final hearing. this the high court will now do. accordingly, we set aside the order of the high court and send the case back to it for restoring the writ petition to its original number and thereafter to decide it on the questions arising therein in the presence of the parties......
Judgment:

R.S. Pathak, J.

1. The appellant filed a writ petition in the High Court of Delhi contending that his compulsory retirement by the Punjab and Sind Bank was contrary to law. The Writ Petition was taken up for a preliminary hearing by a Bench of two learned judges of the High Court. The learned judges differed on whether the Writ Petition should be dismissed in limine or a rule should be issued The matter was referred to a third learned Judge who, on November 11, 1980, passed an order dismissing the Writ Petition in limine. By this appeal the appellant seeks relief against the dismissal of the Writ Petition.

2. It seems to us that this is a case which should not have been dismissed in limine by the High Court. The High Court should have issued a rule and after hearing the parties on the questions arising in the case, should have disposed it of in final hearing. This the High Court will now do. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the High Court and send the case back to it for restoring the Writ Petition to its original number and thereafter to decide it on the questions arising therein in the presence of the parties. The parties will appear before the High Court on 24th August, 1981 for appropriate orders.

3. There is no order as to costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //