LAWS(APH)-1954-9-28

NARUSU SEETHARAMAIAH AND OTHERS Vs. KUNDURTHI BHASKARANARAYANA

Decided On September 20, 1954
Narusu Seetharamaiah And Others Appellant
V/S
Kundurthi Bhaskaranarayana Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition to revise the order of the Additional First Class-Magistrate, Bapatla, directing delivery of the records to the respondent herein under sec. 87 of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act.

(2.) The respondent herein claiming to be a trustee appointed to the temples of Sri Thrivikramaswamivaru and Sri Agastheswaraswamivaru of Cherukur filed a petition under sec. 87 of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act for a direction to the present petitioners to deliver the records as per schedule. Admittedly no notice was issued to the 2nd and 3rd petitioners, though the 1st petitioner had notice of this application and filed a counter. Despite this, the learned Magistrate passed the order sought to be revised.

(3.) Mr. Basi Reddi, who appears in support of this revision petition against that order, contends that the order violates the principles of natural justice, in that no notice was issued against the petitioners 2 and 3 and they had no opportunity of placing their version of the case before the Court. It looks to me that there is substance in this submission. To pass an order against parties without hearing them certainly offends against the elementary principles of natural justice audi alteram partem which have to be observed in all judicial proceedings. It cannot be disputed that the Magistrate while passing an order under sec. 87 exercises judicial functions. He is therefore bound to issue notice to all parties before him and hear them before passing an order under sec. 87 of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act. The very fact that petitioners 2 and 3 were impleaded as parties implied that the respondent thought that their presence was-necessary and if so natural justice requires that they should be heard before an order is passed. It follows that the order passed without notice to petitioners 2 and 3 and without hearing them is unsustainable and ought to be set aside.