Consensual Relationship That Later Turns Sour Is Not Rape: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Breach of Promise Case Double Presumption of Innocence Applies; No Interference Unless Trial Court Judgment Is Perverse: Allahabad High Court in Murder Appeal Under BNSS A Single Act of Corruption Warrants Dismissal – 32 Years of Service Offers No Immunity: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds ASI’s Removal Suit Against Trustee Without Charity Commissioner’s Consent Is Statutorily Barred: Bombay High Court Government Can't Deny Implied Surrender After Refusing to Accept Possession: Madras HC Clarifies Scope of Section 111(f) of TP Act Custodial Interrogation Must Prevail Over Pre-Arrest Comfort in Hate Speech Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail for Provocative Remarks Against Migrants Mutation Order Without Notice Cannot Stand in Law: Orissa High Court Quashes Tahasildar's Rejection for Violating Natural Justice Cruelty Must Be Grave and Proven – Mere Allegations of Disobedience or Demand for Separate Residence Don’t Justify Divorce: Jharkhand High Court Rejects Husband’s Divorce Appeal Retaliatory Prosecution Cannot Override Liberty: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in PMLA Case Post CBI Trap of ED Officer Illegal Remand Without Production of Accused Is Not a Technical Lapse, But a Constitutional Breach: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Major NDPS Case Inherent Power Under Section 528 BNSS Not a Substitute for Article 226 When FIR Is Under Challenge Without Chargesheet or Cognizance Order: Allahabad High Court Possession Without Title Is Legally Insubstantial: Gujarat HC Dismisses Appeal By Dairy Cooperative Over Void Land Transfer You Can Prosecute a Former Director, But You Can’t Force Him to Represent the Company: Calcutta High Court Lays Down Clear Limits on Corporate Representation in PMLA Cases Conviction Cannot Rest on Tainted Testimony of Injured Witnesses in Isolation: Bombay High Court Acquits Five in Murder Case One Attesting Witness is Sufficient if He Proves Execution and Attestation of Will as Required by Law: AP High Court Land Acquisition | Delay Cannot Defeat Just Compensation: P&H High Court Grants Enhanced Compensation Despite 12-Year Delay in Review Petitions by Landowners Allegations Implausible, Motivated by Malice: Kerala High Court Quashes Rape Case After Finding Abuse Claims a Counterblast to Civil Dispute Adoptions Under Hindu Law Need No Approval from District Magistrate: Madras High Court Declares Administrative Rejection of Adoptive Birth Certificate as Illegal Findings of Fact Cannot Be Re-Appreciated in an Appeal Under Section 10F Companies Act: Madras High Court Equality Is Not A Mechanical Formula, But A Human Commitment: P&H High Court Grants Visually Impaired Mali Retrospective Promotions With Full Benefits Orissa High Court Rules Notice for No Confidence Motion Must Include Both Requisition and Resolution – Provision Held Mandatory Ashramam Built on Private Land, Managed by Family – Not a Public Religious Institution: Andhra Pradesh High Court Quashes Endowments Notification Cruelty Must Be Proved, Not Presumed: Gujarat High Court Acquits Deceased Husband In 498A Case After 22 Years Trade Dress Protection Goes Beyond Labels: Calcutta High Court Affirms Injunction Over Coconut Oil Packaging Mimicry Mere Filing of Income Tax Returns Does Not Exonerate the Accused: Madras High Court Refuses Discharge to Wife of Public Servant in ₹2 Crore DA Case

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

Latest Legal News