KAKU Vs. SAVITRI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the orders Annexure P/1, passed by the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), the Presiding Authority, Sirsa, dated 12.10.1978 and the order of Collector, Sirsa dated 26.10.1981(Annexure P/2), the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed C.W.P. No. 5117 of 1981 praying therein for quashing the aforesaid two orders (Annexures P/1 and P/2). It was further prayed that pending decision of the writ petition, the dispossession of the writ petitioners and respondent No. 5 therein be stayed. The writ petition was admitted and shown in the regular case list for hearing before the learned Single Judge. It appears that upon application made by the writ petitioners the aforesaid writ petition was added on 1.2.1989 at serial No. 97 on the regular cause list. Upon submissions made by the counsel for the writ petitioners, the case was taken up by the learned Single Judge for hearing in the absence of the counsel for the appellants herein apparently on account of the representation made by the other side that the case was a covered case, as is apparent from Annexure R/3 -the Single Bench cause list for 1.2.1985. The learned -Single Judge noted few facts as alleged by the writ petitioners and disposed of the writ petition by holding: -

(2.) It is submitted that in the normal course, the matter shown at serial No. 97 was not likely to be taken on 2.2.1989 which prevented the counsel for the appellant to appear in the case on the date fixed. It may be worthwhile to mention that regular cases at serial Nos. 2, 2A, 3, 5 to 36 and 88 had been shown as remnants in the list for 2.2.1989.

(3.) A perusal of the judgment of the learned Single Judge had persuaded us to accept the contention of the appellant inasmuch as the point in controversy raised by the writ petitioners and denied by the official respondents were never taken into account or adjudicated vide the judgment impugned. Under the belief that the writ petition was not likely to be taken up for hearing, the appellants herein had not even filed their replies in the writ petition. The judgment of the learned Single Judge cannot therefore be termed to be a 'judgment' adjudicating the rights of the parties. The disposal of the writ petition vide the judgment impugned is, therefore, held to be not on merits but on the assumption of the case being covered by a judgment of the Supreme Court referred to in the impugned judgment. It has been conceded before us that the case of the parties was not covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court in F. C Haryana v/s. Kala Devi .