It is deemed that sufficient notice of the listing of the case and the hearing is given if there is sufficient compliance with the requirements of Order 39 Rule 4 CPC : Jammu and Kashmir High Court
Once procession is taken after the acquisition proceedings stood concluded and the final award passed, the court will not interfere in the decision. This was held in the judgment passed by a two- judge bench comprising of HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR and HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SINDHU SHARMA, in the matter sufficient compliance with the requirements of Order 39 Rule 4 CPC V. Union Territory of J&K &Ors. [CMAM No. 52/2010], dealt with an issue where the petitioner filed a petition challenging the judgment and order for construction of the All India Medical Institute at Awantipora.
Counsel for the appellants urged that the judgment and order impugned was passed without hearing the appellants. It was stated that the writ petition was listed on 30th of December, 2019, but the Bench collapsed due to non-availability of the Hon’ble Judge due to some unavoidable circumstances. It was urged that the Registrar Judicial of the Srinagar Wing of the High Court, accordingly, on the same day, notified that the cases would not be taken up by the said Bench. It was stated that the counsel for the petitioners-appellants, on coming to know that the Hon’ble Judge would not be holding the Court, was under a bona fide belief that the cases would be adjourned in the normal course and, therefore, was not personally present when the case was taken up by a Coordinate Bench upon a request having been made by the Counsel for the respondents on the same date.
A lot of emphasis was laid by the counsel for the respondents that the entire process of acquisition had since been completed before the filing of the writ petition and, therefore, according to latest Apex Court judgments, the Courts would not interfere in the acquisition matters which had attained finality by passing of the award as also by delivery of possession. It was, therefore, urged that notwithstanding the fact that the counsel for the petitioners was not present, the outcome of the writ petition would, however, remain unchanged.
The issue that arises for consideration is as to whether counsel for the appellants had sufficient notice in terms of provisions of Order 39 Rule 4 of CPC before the Writ Court could modify the order.
After hearing both sides, the Hon’ble High Court of Jammu and Kashmir dismissed the petition and held that In the court’s opinion, counsel for the appellants, therefore, must be deemed to have sufficient notice of the listing of the case and the hearing therein, especially in view of the fact that the objections had been filed by the respondents to the writ petition. In our opinion, there was sufficient compliance with the requirements of Order 39 Rule 4 CPC in the present case.
Judgement reviewed by – Vaishnavi Raman