Supreme Court sets aside High Court order for not giving notice to the appellant: Shivaji vs. Parwatibai (2024) INSC 917 (26 November 2024)

Date of the Judgment: 26 November 2024
Citation: (2024) INSC 917
Judges: Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.R. Gavai and Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.V. Viswanathan.

Can a court decide a case without even informing one of the parties involved? The Supreme Court recently addressed this very basic, yet crucial, question of procedural fairness. In a civil appeal, the Supreme Court found that the High Court had decided a second appeal without giving notice to one of the respondents, thus violating principles of natural justice. This case highlights the importance of ensuring all parties have a chance to be heard before a decision is made.

The judgment was delivered by a bench of two judges, comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.R. Gavai and Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.V. Viswanathan. The opinion was authored by Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.R. Gavai.

Case Background

The case originated from a suit filed in 2009. The present appeal arises from a decision made by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay at Aurangabad in a second appeal, where the current appellant was Respondent No. 2. The High Court decided the matter without giving notice to the appellant.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay at Aurangabad decided the second appeal without giving notice to the appellant, who was Respondent No. 2 in that case. The Supreme Court noted that the questions of law were framed by the High Court during the dictation of the order, without giving the appellant an opportunity to be heard on these questions.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court referred to its previous judgment in Suresh Lataruji Ramteke v. Sau. Sumanbai Pandurang Petkar and Others, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1210, where it had deprecated the practice of High Courts deciding matters without giving notice to the parties. The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to principles of natural justice, which require that all parties have a fair opportunity to be heard before a decision is made.

Arguments

The appellant’s counsel, Shri Atul Babasaheb Dakh, argued that the High Court decided the second appeal without giving notice to the appellant. He further submitted that the questions of law were framed by the High Court during the dictation of the order, without giving the appellant an opportunity to be heard. This, according to the appellant, was a clear violation of natural justice.

The respondent’s arguments are not mentioned in the judgment.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

• Whether the High Court was justified in deciding the second appeal without giving notice to the appellant.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

Judgment

The Supreme Court relied on Suresh Lataruji Ramteke v. Sau. Sumanbai Pandurang Petkar and Others, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1210* to emphasize the importance of giving notice to all parties before a decision is made. The Court held that the High Court’s decision was not sustainable because it violated the principles of natural justice.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily driven by the principle of natural justice, which mandates that no party should be condemned unheard. The Court emphasized that the High Court’s failure to provide notice to the appellant was a fundamental flaw in the proceedings. Additionally, the fact that the questions of law were framed during the dictation of the order, without giving the appellant an opportunity to be heard, further solidified the Court’s decision to set aside the High Court’s order.

The Supreme Court’s reasoning was based on the fundamental principle of natural justice, which requires that all parties be given an opportunity to be heard before a decision is made. The Court found that the High Court’s failure to provide notice to the appellant was a clear violation of this principle. The Court also noted that the questions of law were framed during the dictation of the order, further depriving the appellant of an opportunity to present their case. The Supreme Court emphasized that such a practice is not acceptable and that all parties must be given a fair chance to be heard before a decision is made.

The court quoted from the judgment: “This appeal deserves to be allowed on the short ground that the second appeal, wherein the present appellant was Respondent No.2, was decided even without giving notice to the appellant herein.”

The court further stated: “Such a practice by the High Court is deprecated by a recent judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Suresh Lataruji Ramteke v. Sau. Sumanbai Pandurang Petkar and Others, reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1210.”

The court concluded: “The impugned order is, therefore, set aside and the matter is remitted back to the High Court for deciding it afresh in accordance with law.”

Key Takeaways

• ✓ High Courts must ensure that all parties are given notice before deciding a case.
• ✓ Questions of law should not be framed and decided without giving the parties an opportunity to be heard.
• ✓ Decisions made without adhering to principles of natural justice are liable to be set aside.
• ✓ The Supreme Court has emphasized the importance of procedural fairness in judicial proceedings.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the impugned order of the High Court and remitted the matter back to the High Court for deciding it afresh in accordance with law. The Court requested the High Court to decide the appeal expeditiously, preferably within a period of one year.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a High Court cannot decide a second appeal without giving notice to the respondent. This reaffirms the importance of procedural fairness and the principles of natural justice in judicial proceedings. The judgment also reiterates the Supreme Court’s disapproval of practices that deny parties an opportunity to be heard.

Conclusion

In the case of Shivaji vs. Parwatibai, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order for deciding a second appeal without giving notice to the appellant. The Court emphasized the importance of procedural fairness and the principles of natural justice, ensuring that all parties have an opportunity to be heard before a decision is made. This judgment serves as a reminder to all courts to adhere to these fundamental principles.