1955 (3) TMI 31 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether the plaintiff was in fact misled or could have been misled if he had acted with due diligence and caution? Held that - Tribunal will consider this question above. It will take in-to consideration the fact that the defendant did enter an appearance and did file a written statement and that issues were framed in his presence; also that the case was fixed for the Petitioner s evidence only and not for that of the appellant; and that the petitioner examined all the witnesses he had present on the 17th and the 18th and did not give up any of them; that he was given an adjournment on 19-3-1953 for the examination witnesses who did not come on that date and that the examined three more on 20-3-1953 after the defendant had entered an appearance through counsel an( claimed the right to plead; also whether, when the appellant s only protest was against the bearings a Udaipur on dates fixed for the petitioner s evidence alone, it would be legitimate for a party acting with due caution and diligence to assume that the other side had abandoned his right to adduce his own evidence should the hearing for that be fixed at some other place or at some other date in the same place. The Tribunal will also consider and determine whether it will be proper in the circumstances of this case to allow the appellant to adduce his own evidence.

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
2. Interpretation and application of procedural rules under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
3. Rights of a party to appear and plead in court proceedings.
4. Discretion of the court in allowing participation of parties after ex parte proceedings.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution:

The primary issue was whether the High Court had jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition under Article 226 to challenge the Tribunal's refusal to allow the appellant's counsel to participate in the proceedings after an ex parte order. The judgment clarified that the jurisdiction of the High Courts under Article 226 is not curtailed by Section 105 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, which states that every order of the Tribunal shall be final and conclusive. The Supreme Court cited previous decisions, noting that limitations on this jurisdiction can only be imposed by the Constitution itself, not by legislative acts. The Court emphasized that the High Courts and the Supreme Court have the authority to examine whether tribunals have acted illegally, and this jurisdiction cannot be taken away by legislative devices.

2. Interpretation and application of procedural rules under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908:

The judgment delved into the procedural rules applicable to the trial of suits under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, particularly focusing on Order IX and Order XVII. The Court highlighted that procedural rules are designed to facilitate justice and should not be interpreted too technically. The principle of natural justice, which requires that decisions should not be reached behind a party's back and that parties should not be precluded from participating in proceedings, was underscored. The Court examined the provisions related to the first hearing, adjourned hearings, and the consequences of non-appearance, emphasizing that these rules should be interpreted to avoid injustice and ensure fair proceedings.

3. Rights of a party to appear and plead in court proceedings:

The judgment reaffirmed the right of a party to appear and plead in court proceedings, even after an ex parte order has been passed. The Court noted that the right to appear is fundamental and should not be denied unless explicitly provided by the Code. The analysis of Order IX, Rule 6, and Rule 7 indicated that a party who appears at an adjourned hearing should be allowed to participate in the proceedings from the stage they have reached, subject to the court's discretion. The Court emphasized that this right should be balanced with the need to avoid snap decisions and ensure that all parties have a fair opportunity to present their cases.

4. Discretion of the court in allowing participation of parties after ex parte proceedings:

The judgment extensively discussed the discretion vested in the court to allow or disallow participation of parties after ex parte proceedings. The Court criticized the Tribunal for not exercising its discretion properly, as it believed it had none until the ex parte order was set aside. The Court clarified that the Tribunal had the discretion to allow the appellant's counsel to participate in the proceedings, subject to terms and conditions that the Tribunal deemed fit. The Court directed the Tribunal to reconsider its orders, taking into account whether the plaintiff was misled and whether the appellant should be allowed to adduce evidence.

The Supreme Court concluded by quashing the Tribunal's order and directing it to exercise its discretion in light of the observations made, ensuring that justice is done to both parties and that procedural rules are interpreted to facilitate fair and just proceedings. The records were to be sent to the Election Commission with directions to reconstitute the Tribunal if necessary and proceed accordingly. There was no order as to costs.

← Previous Next →