Skip to content


Jwala Prasad Vs. Ajodhya Prasad - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtSupreme Court of India
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Appeal No. 3650 of 1982 (Arising out of SLP No. 7704 of 1979)
Judge
Reported inAIR1983SC304; 1983(31)BLJR234; 1983(1)SCALE716a
AppellantJwala Prasad
RespondentAjodhya Prasad
DispositionAppeal allowed
Excerpt:
civil - opportunity of being heard - section 115 of cpc, 1908 - revision application dismissed without giving appellant opportunity of being heard - matter brought before high court dismissed - appeal against high court judgment - opportunity of being heard denied to appellant - principal of natural justice violated - held, high court judgment set aside and matter remitted back matter to lower court for disposal according to law. - insurance act (4 of 1938) preamble. :[d.k.jain & r.m.lodha, jj] insurance policy - construction of held, document like proposal form is a commercial document. it being integral part of policy, reference to proposal form may not only be appropriate but rather essential. however, surveyors report cannot be taken aid of nor can it furnish basis for..........present case and particularly in view of the fact that the order passed by the second additional district judge on 11th april, 1977 clearly shows that neither the appellant nor his advocate was present at the time when the revision application was called out for hearing and dismissed and that the application for restoration of the revision application made by the appellant was taken up by the second additional. district judge in his chamber on 24th sept. 1977 and was dismissed without giving an opportunity to the appellant of being heard and though the appellant mentioned the matter before the second additional district judge on the same day, it was not restored. the appellant has been denied an opportunity of being heard. we therefore, allow the appeal, set aside the order of the high.....
Judgment:

1. We are of the view that having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case and particularly in view of the fact that the order passed by the second additional District Judge on 11th April, 1977 clearly shows that neither the appellant nor his advocate was present at the time when the revision application was called out for hearing and dismissed and that the application for restoration of the revision application made by the appellant was taken up by the second additional. District Judge in his chamber on 24th Sept. 1977 and was dismissed without giving an opportunity to the appellant of being heard and though the appellant mentioned the matter before the second additional District Judge on the same day, it was not restored. The appellant has been denied an opportunity of being heard. We therefore, allow the appeal, set aside the order of the High Court dated 30th July 1979 as also the orders of the second Additional District Judge dated 24th Sept. 1977 and 11th April. 1977 and restore the revision application to its original file and direct that the revision application be heard and disposed of by the District Judge on merits in accordance with law. There will be no order as to costs of the appeal.


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