Litigant Cannot Be Expected To Wait Indefinitely For Court's Order After Pronouncement- SC In Matter Related To Election Petition
In a matter related to Election Petition, the Supreme Court has observed that a litigant cannot be expected to wait indefinitely for the availability of reasons for the order of the Court.
The Bench of Justice Dinesh Maheshwari and Justice Bela M. Trivedi observed –
… the litigation cannot be expected to wait indefinitely for availability of the reasons for the order of the Court. Moreover, when the matter relates to the election petition under the Act of 1951, which itself is a time-sensitive matter…"
In this case, the Appellants had moved an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC in the Election Petition in the Telangana High Court. The matter was taken up for consideration after a considerable delay and after a prolonged hearing, the order was pronounced, purportedly allowing the application and rejecting the election petition filed by the Appellant but then, the reasoned order allowing the application is not available as yet.
Senior Advocate Dr. AM Singhvi appeared for the Appellant before the Court.
It was contended before the Apex Court that the order was orally pronounced by the High Court but no reasoned order was supplied to the parties. It was also submitted that even after more than three months, the reasoned order is still not available to the parties.
The Court in this context noted –
"We find it difficult to countenance the position that even after pronouncement of the result on the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC on 15.06.2022, the reasoned order is not available to the parties until this date."
The Bench further placed reliance on Anil Rai v. State of Bihar and State of Punjab and Others v. Jagdev Singh Talwani and observed –
"We are of the view that the guidelines and observations therein remain fundamental to the course of dispensation of justice in any cause before the Court and the principle set out therein need to be applied with necessary variation, as may be necessary in the given fact situation of any particular case."
"In the present case, as indicated above, the position obtaining at present is that even after more than three months from pronouncement of the order by the High Court, the reasons are not forthcoming and are not available with either of the parties. Looking to the nature of litigation and the overall circumstances, we find it difficult to countenance this position," the Court further noted.
The Court thus allowed the appeal and restored the matter for reconsideration.
Cause Title – K. Madan Mohan Rao v. Bheemrao Baswanthrao Patil & Ors.