NDLI: Mahadev Govind Gharge & Others Vs. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Upper Krishna Project, Jamkhandi, Karnataka

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order XLI Rule 22
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Act(s) Referred	Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908)
Case(s) Referred	Referred Case 0 Referred Case 1 Referred Case 2 Referred Case 3 Referred Case 4 Referred Case 5 Referred Case 6
Case Type	Appeal
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Others
Headnote	Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order XLI, Rule 22 - Interpretation of - Service of notice of hearing of appeal - Filing of cross-objections - Period of limitation - Commencement of - Condonation of delay - Held: The limitation of one month for filing cross-objection as provided under Order XLI Rule 22 commences from the date of service of notice on the respondent in the appeal or his pleader of the day fixed for hearing the appeal - The cross-objections are required to be filed within the period of one month from the date of service of such notice or within such further time as Appellate Court may see fit to allow depending upon the facts and circumstances of the given case - Since Order XLI Rule 22 itself provide for extension of time, the Courts would normally be inclined to condone the delay in the interest of justice unless and until the cross-objector is unable to furnish a reasonable or sufficient cause for seeking the leave of the Court to file cross-objections beyond the statutory period of one month - In the instant case, the cross-objectors were caveators before the High Court and they were heard not only while passing of interim orders but the appeal itself was admitted in their presence - In the circumstances, one month of prescribed period in terms of Order XLI Rule 22 commenced from the date on which the High Court ordered that the appeal may be listed for hearing - As the period for filing the cross objection had long expired, application for condonation of delay was filed - High Court dismissed the application without recording any specific reasons as to why the averments of the cross-objector were disbelieved - In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the crossobjectors were able to show sufficient/reasonable cause for B grant of further time to file the cross objections beyond the period of one month in terms of Order XLI Rule 22 - Delay in filing the cross-objections thus condoned. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908- Order XLI, r.22- Crossobjections - Nature of - Held: Cross-objections within the scheme of Order XLI Rule 22 are to be treated as separate appeal and must be disposed of on same principles in accordance with the provisions of Order XLI. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - s.148A - Rights of a caveator - Held: The rights of a caveator are different from that of cross-objectors per se - A caveator has a right to be heard mandatorily for the purposes of passing of an interlocutory order - A caveator is to be heard· by the court before any interim order can be passed against him. Procedural Law - Hearing of appeal - Stages of - Held: Hearing of the appeal can be classified in two different stages; one at the admission stage and the other at the final stage. Procedural Law - Date of hearing - Held: Date of hearing has normally been defined as the date on which the court applies its mind to the merits of the case - In a criminal matter the hearing of the case is said to be commenced by the Court only when it applies its mind to frame a charge etc. - Similarly, under civil law it is only when the Court actually applies its mind to averments made by party/parties, it can be considered as hearing of the case - The date of hearing must not be confused with the expression 'step in the proceedings' - These are two different concepts of procedural law and have different connotation and application - What may be a 'step in the proceeding', essentially, may not mean 'hearing' by the Court - Necessary ingredients of 'hearing' thus are application of mind by the court and address by the party to the suits. Procedural law - Purpose and interpretation of - Held: Justice between the parties to a case is the essence of procedural law - Unless the statute expressly prohibits or put an embargo, the Courts would interpret the procedural law so as to achieve the ends of justice - Strict construction of a procedural law is called for where there is complete extinguishment of rights, as opposed to the cases where discretion is vested in the courts to balance the equities between the parties to meet the ends of justice which would invite liberal construction - The provisions of procedural law which do not provide for penal consequences in default of their compliance should normally be construed as directory in nature and should receive liberal construction.
Judge	Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.K. Ganguly
Neutral Citation	2011 INSC 375
Petitioner	Mahadev Govind Gharge & Others
Respondent	The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Upper Krishna Project, Jamkhandi, Karnataka
SCR	[2011] 8 S.C.R. 829
Judgement Date	2011-05-10
Case Number	5094

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

Mahadev Govind Gharge & Others Vs. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Upper Krishna Project, Jamkhandi, Karnataka

Please Log-in to view this content

Vidyawati Vs. Man Mohan and Others

K. Rudrappa Vs. Shivappa

The State of Punjab and Ors. Vs. Bakshish Singh

K.muthuswami Gounder Vs. N. Palaniappa Gounder

Sirajudheen Vs. Zeenath & Ors

Amit Kumar Shaw and Anr. Vs. Farida Khatoon and Anr.

Sh. Bakshish Singh (dead) By Lrs. Vs. Arjan Singh and Ors.

Kanta Rani ©kant! Devi & Anr. Vs. Rama Rani

Bihar Eastern Gangetic Fishermen Co-operative Society Limited Vs. Slpahi Singh & Others

Mahadev Govind Gharge & Others Vs. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Upper Krishna Project, Jamkhandi, Karnataka

Mahadev Govind Gharge & Others Vs. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Upper Krishna Project, Jamkhandi, Karnataka

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

Vidyawati Vs. Man Mohan and Others

K. Rudrappa Vs. Shivappa

The State of Punjab and Ors. Vs. Bakshish Singh

K.muthuswami Gounder Vs. N. Palaniappa Gounder

Sirajudheen Vs. Zeenath & Ors

Amit Kumar Shaw and Anr. Vs. Farida Khatoon and Anr.

Sh. Bakshish Singh (dead) By Lrs. Vs. Arjan Singh and Ors.

Kanta Rani ©kant! Devi & Anr. Vs. Rama Rani

Bihar Eastern Gangetic Fishermen Co-operative Society Limited Vs. Slpahi Singh & Others

Mahadev Govind Gharge & Others Vs. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Upper Krishna Project, Jamkhandi, Karnataka