9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Dismissal of writ petition in absence of counsel. 2. Application for setting aside the order. 3. Power of High Court to recall an erroneous order. 4. Interpretation of Article 225 of the Constitution. 5. Rules of Court regarding hearing and adjournment of cases. 6. Traditions of the Court regarding adjournment on illness slip. 7. Abuse of adjournment facility on illness slip. 8. Miscarriage of justice due to failure to adjourn on illness slip. Analysis: 1. The judgment addressed the dismissal of a writ petition in the absence of the appellant's counsel, leading to the subsequent application for setting aside the order. The High Court dismissed the application for recall, prompting the appeal to the Supreme Court. 2. The appellant argued that if the mistake was on the court's part for not bringing the illness slip to notice, the High Court retained jurisdiction to recall the erroneous order under its inherent powers. The contention was that even if the merits were considered in counsel's absence, the judgment could still be recalled. 3. The Court interpreted Article 225 of the Constitution, preserving the High Court's powers as they were before the Constitution came into force. This included the power to make rules of court and regulate the sitting of courts, emphasizing the administrative functions of the Chief Justice. 4. The judgment delved into the Rules of Court, specifically Chapter VI, Rule 15, which empowers the Chief Justice to adjourn cases on valid grounds like illness. The application for adjournment must be accompanied by specific details, and once allowed, it is the duty of the Registry to comply. 5. The Court highlighted the traditions of the Allahabad High Court, emphasizing the importance of adjourning cases on an illness slip as a sign of respect for counsel. These traditions, built on cooperation and trust, bind lawyers and judges in a relationship of mutual understanding. 6. The abuse of adjournment facilities on illness slips was acknowledged, but the Court rejected the plea for abolition, considering the impact on litigants who might not afford alternative arrangements. The judgment upheld the noble tradition of adjourning cases on genuine illness grounds. 7. The failure to adjourn the case on the illness slip led to a miscarriage of justice in the instant case. The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the previous judgments, and remanded the case to the High Court for a fresh decision after providing an opportunity for both parties' counsel to be heard.
|
