Case: Nirankar Nath Wahi And Others Vs. Fifth Addl. District Judge, Moradabad And Ors

"Justice", we do not tire of saying, "must not only be done", but "must be seen to done". And yet at times some Courts suffer from temporary amnesia and forget these words of wisdom. In the result, a Court occasionally adopts a procedure which does not meet the high standards set for itself by the judiciary. The present matter falls in that unfortunate category of cases. That is the reason why, though we do not feel very happy in doing so, we have had to grant special leave for disposing of the appeal not on merits, but only for the purpose of setting aside the impugned judgment rendered by the learned Additional District Judge, Moradabad. To set it aside on the ground that the procedure adopted by the learned Judge at the hearing of the appeal was not just and fair. And in order to consequently remand the matter for hearing the appeal afresh with a view to dispose it of on merits in accordance with lawThe order-sheet of May 20, 1983 of the record of the appeal in the Court of the learned District Judge shows that the appellant sought adjournment on the ground of indisposition of his senior counsel from Saharanpur with a request that the appeal be adjourned to some date in July. The learned Additional District Judge refused the prayer but granted three days time for making alternative arrangement and directed that the appeal be posted for hearing of further arguments on May 23, 1983. He further directed that in the event of failure to urge arguments on May 23, 1983, the judgment will be pronounced. Even so , the appellant again sought an adjournment on the ground that he could not secure the services of his senior counsel from Sharanpur as he was not able to appear till the month of July, and prayed for some time to engage a senior counsel from Moradabad. The learned Additional District Judge refused the adjournment on the ground that more than sufficient time had been granted for additional arguments, rejected the prayer for adjournment, and thene judgment is ready which is delivered."The appeal was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge by pronouncing the judgment which the learned Judge had kept ready for being delivered. As the Act does not provide for any further appeal or revision, the High Court was approached under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India, but the High Court rejected the Writ Petition in limine. Hence the present appeal by special leaveThe following facts emerge from the order-sheet:(1) On May 12, 1 983 the learned Additional District Judge had felt that the request made by the appellant for further arguments was justified and had granted it(2) On May 20, 1983 the Court granted only three days time to make alternative arrangement in view of the fact that the senior counsel from Saharanpur engaged by the appellant was not in a position to appear on account of illness(3) On 23rd May, 1983, the arguments were to be heard. Notwithstanding that the arguments were yet to be heard on this date, the learned Judge had kept the judgment ready for pronouncing, which he pronounced forthwith wilts refusing the pray er for adjournment made by the appellant with a view to engage a senior advocate from the local bar since the Advocate from Saharanpur already engaged by him was not available.

Court's reasoning:
We are afraid that these vital aspects were overlooked by the learned Judge when he granted only three days time to make alternative arrangement for engaging a local senior counsel by reason of the fact that the Saharanpur Advocate engaged by the appellant was not in a position to appear on the ground of illness. This short adjournment for three days w as granted vide order dated May 20, 1983. But on May 23, 1983, the learned Judge refused to grant further time to the appellant who had not been able to make suitable arrangement for engaging a counsel on that date. We are of the opinion that the appellant has been denied a reasonable opportunity of hearing, and that the grievance made by the appellant, as regards the procedure adopted by the learned Judge on this score, is not unfounded. This is one of the two reasons which has impelled us t o set aside the order passed by the learned Additional District Judge and to remand the matter for a fresh decision in accordance with law after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the parties.The second ground has also been substantiated in the sense that the appellant cannot be faulted for entertaining the misgiving that the procedure adopted was not in tune with ones sense of justice. The grievance this time arises on account of the fact that even though May 23, 1983 was fixed for hearing of further oral arguments, the learned Judge had kept a judgment ready for being pronounced and he proceeded to pronounce it forthwith whilst refusing the prayer for adjournment made by the appellant. It is not in dispute tha t on May 23, 1983 the learned Additional District Judge had granted three days time to the appellant to enable him to engage an advocate to make further oral submissions. Since the matter was posted on 23rd May, 1983, for further oral arguments, the learned Judge could not have commenced writing his judgment till further arguments were heard on that day or the request for adjournment, if any, was refused. No objection could have been taken if on turning down the request for adjournment on May 23, 1983, the learned Judge had commenced writing or dictating his judgment in the Court. But he had kept his judgment (dismissing the appeal) ready for being pronounced. When the appellant made a request for an adjournment for engaging an advocate, the request was turned down and the judgment prepared in advance, dismissing the appeal, was straightaway pronounced. As we pointed out earlier, the learned Judge could be expected to be aware of the fact that the appellant being a landlord seeking an eviction order was not interested in unnecessarily prolonging the hearing of the appeal. He also could not have been unaware of the fact that the respondent was a leading member of the local Bar and an influential person and that under the circumstances a citizen who was pitted against him in a personal litigation was likely to feel that he was not getting just and fair treatment if the judgment was kept ready in anticipation that the request for adjournment was going to be made and was going to be refused. Supposing no request for adjournment was made and a senior advocate had appeared on behalf of the appellant what would have happened ? Before hearing his arguments , the learned Judge had already made up his mind and kept ready a judgment wherein he had reached the conclusion that there was no substance in the appeal. These embarrassing facts stare one in the eye. We do not think that fault can be found wit h the appellant if he felt, as any other litigant would have perhaps felt, that the procedure adopted was lacking in fairness. In fairness to the learned Judge, we must mention that in his order dated May 20, 1983, he had observed asl adjourned to 23-5-83 for additional arguments failing which judgment would be pronounced."But the fact remains that the learned Judge could not have armed himself with a ready-made judgment dismissing the appeal when further arguments on behalf of the appellant were yet to be heard. And apparently there was no time- compulsion to pronounce the judgment on that very day, The judgment rendered by the learned Judge is thus vitiated by reason of the failure to grant reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellant and by reason of the procedure adopted in connection with the preparation and pronouncement of the judgment. We may incidentally observe that we are also distressed that the High Court rejected the petition summarily in the face of these features and obliged the appellant to approach this Court.