2022 (12) TMI 1239 - SC - Indian Laws

Seeking exemption from filing the impugned order - Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - HELD THAT - Apart from the statutory requirements Under Section 86(7) of the Act of 1951, of expeditious proceedings and conclusion of trial of the election petition within six months from the date of presentation, it is even otherwise indisputable that this litigation, by its very nature, calls for expeditious proceedings while being assigned a specific priority by the Court dealing with the same. In the present matter, we do not find it necessary to refer to or dilate upon the previous proceedings, including the order passed by this Court on 21.03.2021 but, find it difficult to countenance the position that even after pronouncement of the result on the application Under Order VII Rule 11 Code of Civil Procedure on 15.06.2022, the reasoned order is not available to the parties until this date. In the present case, the position obtaining at present is that even after more than three months from pronouncement of the order by the High Court, the reasons are not forthcoming and are not available with either of the parties. Looking to the nature of litigation and the overall circumstances, we find it difficult to countenance this position - Even if we take into consideration the submissions made on behalf of the Respondents about availability of the remedy of appeal to this Court, in our view, such an appeal, which could be preferred on the question/s of law or fact, would also remain an empty formality for the simple reason that neither determination of question of law nor determination of any question of fact by the High Court for the purpose of dealing with the application Under Order VII Rule 11 Code of Civil Procedure is available to the parties. It is deemed appropriate that this order and the entire matter be placed for necessary orders before the Chief Justice of the High Court, who may issue appropriate assigning orders for dealing with the matter pursuant to this order and in accordance with law - appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Delay in consideration of application Under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, absence of reasoned order, compliance with statutory requirements for expeditious proceedings in election petition, availability of remedy of appeal, necessity of reasons for court orders.

Analysis:
The appeal concerns a delay in considering an application Under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC in an Election Petition, leading to the absence of a reasoned order despite the pronouncement of the result. The Appellant had sought relief due to the delay in the proceedings, emphasizing the importance of reasons for court orders. The Respondents argued that an appeal under the Representation of the People Act, 1951 was not preferred, and interference was unwarranted as the application was allowed on merits. However, the Court highlighted the need for expeditious proceedings in election matters, citing statutory requirements for timely resolution. The Court referenced previous judgments emphasizing the significance of reasoned judgments and the impact of delays on parties' rights.

The Court expressed reservations about the absence of a reasoned order even after the pronouncement of the result, stressing the importance of reasons for court decisions. It referenced a Constitution Bench decision highlighting the challenges posed by pronouncing final orders without reasoned judgments. The Court reiterated the need for adherence to guidelines on pronouncing judgments promptly and the entitlement of parties to move applications for fresh arguments in case of delays. The Court emphasized that principles governing the dispensation of justice must be applied in all cases, including the present matter.

Considering the circumstances, the Court found it untenable that the reasoned order was still unavailable to the parties after a significant delay. The Court dismissed the argument regarding the availability of the remedy of appeal, noting that the absence of reasons hindered parties' rights and the timely resolution of election petitions. The Court decided to set aside the impugned order and remand the matter for reconsideration, emphasizing the necessity of reasons for court orders and the importance of expeditious proceedings in election matters.

The Court directed the parties to appear before the Chief Justice of the High Court for necessary orders, ensuring the matter's appropriate handling in accordance with the law. The Court clarified that its decision did not delve into the merits of the case, leaving all aspects open for consideration before the High Court. Ultimately, the appeal was allowed, and all pending applications were disposed of, highlighting the significance of timely and reasoned judicial decisions in the administration of justice.