T RAMACHANDRAIAH Vs. G NAGAPPA NAIDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In R.F.A. No. 688 of 1987 came up for hearing before this Court in normal course on 30-11-1994. At that point of time, the matter was 7 years old. Even though the appellant's learned advocate is unable so much as to give me the dates of hearing on which this appeal was heard by me, which only indicates the manner in which this case has been conducted and the degree of professionalism that is prevalent in some quarters, I distinctly recall that this appeal was argued before the Court on different dates of hearing by the appellant's learned advocate. The order sheet is also silent with regard to the dates on which the appeal was heard which also shows how the records in this Court are maintained. The arguments had proceeded on these dates of hearing, because this was a reasonably heavy matter and involved several issues. The record was carefully checked by me and I found that apart from the earlier notice, that notice of the hearing had been served by the office of this Court on the respondent and there is an endorsement to the effect that despite this, he is absent and remains unrepresented.

(2.) The appeal was heard on merits and has been disposed of through a final judgment on 30-11-1994. The present respondent has thereafter on 24-12-1994, taken out an application for recalling of the order and various lame excuses are set out for his absence. The receipt of the court notice is admitted, but a statement is made that it was received by the respondent's son who did not inform the respondent. The appellant has filed an affidavit pointing out that the statements to the effect that the respondent was ill and out of Bangalore are false in so far as he was prosecuting other litigations in this City at that point of time. Regardless of this position, to my mind, the respondent has been given a more than adequate opportunity of advancing his submissions. There is unfortunately an impression created in some quarters that even a final judgment of the High Court has no sanctity and that any number of subsequent applications can be made and that this Court is obliged to keep on re-hearing matters. It must be clearly understood that the Court will grant a more than full opportunity to a litigant and his learned advocate, but that there is also an aspect of finality which applies to judgments and orders that are passed on merits.

(3.) Certain submissions were advanced today that the respondent desires to place some material before the Court at this point of time and that he was precluded from doing so earlier. Nobody has precluded the respondent from placing this material before the Court when the case was heard. It was taken up in normal course, argued over several dates, disposed of on merits and therefore, cannot under any circumstances be re-opened, I.A. V accordingly fails and stands dismissed. I.A. VI for stay does not survive and stands disposed of.