Swami Sadashiva Brahmendra Sar (Nil) 02 August 2009

Appeals against common judgment

Dear friends, In Warlu v. Gangotribai AIR 1994 S C 466 a three judge bench of apex court dismissed an appeal on the ground that two other SLPs against same common judgment of the high court were not maintainable having been time barred and attained finality and if the appeal which was filed in time is allowed there will be two conflicting judgments.

In this case time barred appeals were delayed by 11 yrs. Are you convinced with the logic and is it proper to apply the ratio of this decision even where delay is only of few months but not sufficiently explained ? Is this decision a binding precedent or should it be confined to its peculiar facts and be treated as having been passed under Art 142 ?

Reply Follow

1 Replies

Swami Sadashiva Brahmendra Sar (Nil) 02 August 2009

the relevant portion of decision is as under:The appellant, Warlu, then filed three writ petitions Nos. 677/74, 679/ 74 and 760/74 against the common order made by the Land Revenue Tribunal rejecting the three revisions. The High Court by a common order dated 20-8-1980 passed in these writ petitions has rejected all the writ petitions.
2. The said Warlu has filed Civil Appeal No. 244/1982 by special leave against the High Court's order only in so far as it relates to dismissal of writ petition No. 677/1974. Against the common order of the High Court dismissing writ petitions Nos. 679/74 and 760/74, Warlu has filed special leave petitions which are barred by 4125 days i.e. by more than 11 years.
3. The first question is whether there is any ground to condone the delay in filing the special leave petitions by which the High Court's common order dated 20-8-l980 rejecting writ petitions Nos. 679/74 and 760/74 has been challenged.
We do not find any cogent ground given in the application for condonation of delay which in law can constitute sufficient cause to explain the inordinate delay in filing of the special leave petitions. The applications for condonation of delay (l.A. Nos. 1 and 2/92) in filing the special leave petitions are, therefore, dismissed resulting in the dismissal of the special leave petitions as time barred.
4. The question now is of the effect of the dismissal of the special leave petitions on the tenability of Civil Appeal No. 244 of 1982. The facts stated above giving rise to this Civil Appeal clearly indicate that after dismissal of the special leave petitions resulting in finality of the common order dated 20-8-1980 relating to dismissal of writ petitions Nos. 679/74 and 760/ 74, correctness of that order relating to dismissal of the writ petition No. 677/74 cannot be examined for the obvious reason that interference in this appeal is bound to result in the making of conflicting orders regarding tenancy rights in these same lands. This alone is sufficient to require dismissal of Civil Appeal No. 244 of 1982.
5. Consequently, the above S. L .Ps. as well as Civil Appeal No. 244/1982 are dismissed