(Rohinton Fali Nariman and B.R. Gavai, JJ.)
SJVNL __________________________________________ Appellant;
v.
CCC HIM JV and Another _______________________ Respondent(s).
Civil Appeal No. 494 of 2021 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 287/2021), decided on February 12, 2021
The Order of the court was delivered by
Order
1. Leave granted.
2. The Division Bench, by the impugned order dated 29.12.2020, has set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge on the short ground that since arguments were concluded on 24.12.2019 and judgment was delivered nine months later i.e. 30.09.2020, on application of Order 20 of the CPC, it must follow that the single Judge’s judgment be set aside and hearing conducted afresh. A reading of our judgment in Anil Rai v. State of Bihar, (2001) 7 SCC 318 and, para 9 in particular, makes it clear that Order 20 of the CPC does not apply to the High Court. In fact, para 10 then goes on to lay down a series of guidelines which ought to be imposed for the High Court in which, inter alia, it is mentioned that only after six months hiatus between reserving a judgment and delivering it, either party can move an application to the Chief Justice of the High Court, who may then decide that the matter be heard afresh. No such application has been presented in the present case. As a matter of fact, an MA was presented by one of the parties after judgment was reserved to modify the status quo order, and an MA was moved by the other party so as to pass no orders as judgment is reserved.
3. This being the case, the Division Bench order is set aside. The Division Bench to take up the hearing of the appeal afresh and decide the same on merits.
4. The appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms.
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 287/2021
SJVNL ____________________________________________ Petitioner
v.
M/s. CCC HIM JV & Anr ________________________ Respondent(s)
Date : 12-02-2021 This petition was called on for hearing today.
(Before Rohinton Fali Nariman and B.R. Gavai, JJ.)
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Tushar Mehta, SG
Mr. B. K. Satija, AOR
Mr. Kanu Agrawal, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Jayant K. Mehta, Adv.
Mr. Rudrajit Ghosh, Adv.
Mr. Mahesh Thakur, AOR Ms. Vipasha Singh, Adv.
Ms. Shailja Das, Adv
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
ORDER
5. Leave granted.
6. The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order.
———
