Magistrate's Direction for Police Inquiry Under Section 202 CrPC Is Valid; Petitioner Must Await Investigation Outcome: Bombay High Court Dismisses Advocate's Petition as Premature    |     Tribunal’s Compensation Exceeding Claimed Amount Found Just and Fair Under Motor Vehicles Act: No Deduction Errors Warrant Reduction: Gujrat High Court    |     When Two Accused Face Identical Charges, One Cannot Be Convicted While the Other is Acquitted: Supreme Court Emphasizes Principle of Parity in Acquittal    |     Supreme Court Limits Interim Protection for Financial Institutions, Modifies Order on FIRs Filed by Borrowers    |     Kerala High Court Grants Regular Bail in Methamphetamine Case After Delay in Chemical Analysis Report    |     No Sign of Recent Intercourse; No Injury Was Found On Her Body Or Private Parts: Gauhati High Court Acquits Two In Gang Rape Case    |     Failure to Disclose Relationship with Key Stakeholder Led to Setting Aside of Arbitral Award: Gujarat High Court    |     Strict Compliance with UAPA's 7-Day Timeline for Sanctions is Essential:  Supreme Court    |     PAT Teachers Entitled to Regularization from 2014, Quashes Prospective Regularization as Arbitrary: Himachal Pradesh High Court    |     Punjab and Haryana High Court Upholds Anonymity Protections for Victims in Sensitive Cases: Right to Privacy Prevails Over Right to Information    |     Certified Copy of Will Admissible Under Registration Act, 1908: Allahabad HC Dismisses Plea for Production of Original Will    |     Injuries on Non-Vital Parts Do Not Warrant Conviction for Attempt to Murder: Madhya Pradesh High Court Modifies Conviction Under Section 307 IPC to Section 326 IPC    |     Classification Based on Wikipedia Data Inadmissible; Tribunal to Reassess Using Actual Financial Records: PH High Court Orders Reconsideration of Wage Dispute    |     Mere Delay in Initiation Does Not Justify Reduction of Damages: Jharkhand High Court on Provident Fund Defaults    |     Legatee Can Continue Suit Without Probate, But Decree Contingent on Probate Approval: Orissa High Court    |     An Award that Shocks the Conscience of the Court Cannot Stand, Especially When Public Money is Involved: Calcutta HC Reduces Quantum by Half    |     Trademark Transaction Within Territoriality Principle Subject to Indian Tax Laws: Bombay High Court Dismisses Hindustan Unilever's Petition on Non-Deduction of TDS    |     Concealment of Material Facts Bars Relief under Article 226: SC Reprimands Petitioners for Lack of Bonafides    |     Without Determination of the Will's Genuineness, Partition is Impossible: Supreme Court on Liberal Approach to Pleading Amendments    |     Candidates Cannot Challenge a Selection Process After Participating Without Protest : Delhi High Court Upholds ISRO's Administrative Officer Recruitment    |     Invalid Bank Guarantee Invocation Found Fatal to Recovery Claim: Delhi High Court Dismisses GAIL’s Appeal    |     Adverse Remarks in APAR Recorded Without Objectivity and Likely Motivated by Bias: Delhi High Court Quashes Biased APAR Downgrade of CRPF Officer    |    

High Court Stresses Fair Trial in Civil Appeal: Opportunity Has to Be Given to the Parties to Decide the Issue on Merits.

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a notable judgment today, the Andhra Pradesh High Court, under the bench of Hon’ble Dr. Justice K. Manmadha Rao, emphasized the importance of fair trial and opportunity in civil proceedings. The Court set aside an order from a lower court in the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1227 of 2018, underscoring the need for a decision based on merits.

The appeal, filed by M Suguna Devi, contested the dismissal of her application for the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner in I.A.No. 167 of 2017. The lower court had previously dismissed this application, citing intentional delays by the appellant.

Justice Rao, in his decision, highlighted the criticality of providing fair opportunities to parties involved in legal disputes. He stated, “an opportunity has to be given to the parties to decide the issue on merits for fair disposal.” This statement forms the core philosophy of the judgment, which reinstates the fundamental principles of justice and fairness in judicial proceedings.

The case revolved around procedural contentions where the appellant’s representation was allegedly not heard adequately due to the absence of her senior counsel on the scheduled date. The High Court’s intervention rectifies this by directing the lower court to restore I.A.No. 167 of 2017 and to ensure its disposal based on the merits of the case, within a specified four-week period.

Legal experts view this judgment as a reinforcement of the principles of natural justice, especially the right to a fair hearing. The Court’s emphasis on deciding matters on their merits rather than procedural technicalities is being seen as a positive step towards ensuring justice is accessible and equitable.

Representing the appellant, Mr. C. Subodh expressed satisfaction with the judgment, noting that it upholds the right to a fair trial. On the other side, Mr. T. Janardhan Rao, representing the respondents, acknowledged the High Court’s directive.

This decision also reflects upon the Court’s consistent approach in civil litigation, focusing on the essence of the matter rather than solely on procedural lapses, thus paving the way for more equitable and just judicial processes.

Date of Decision: 10 November, 2023

M Suguna Devi Versus T Raikab Chand Died

Similar News