Diwan Singh Deceased Through Lrs vs. Gian Kaur
AI Summary
The Supreme Court declined to interfere with a High Court order concerning a civil dispute, reaffirming the limited scope of Article 136. However, in a significant concession, it granted the petitioner a crucial two-month window to pay outstanding court fees, offering a last chance for their underlying suit to proceed on its merits rather than face outright dismissal.
Case Identifiers
Petitioner's Counsel
Advocates on Record
eCourtsIndia AITM
Brief Facts Summary
The petitioners, legal representatives of Diwan Singh, filed a Special Leave Petition (Civil) in the Supreme Court, challenging a final judgment and order dated December 13, 2017, passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana in CR No. 3995/2015. The case also involved interlocutory applications for condonation of delay in filing and refiling the SLP, and exemption from filing certified copies. The core of the matter appears to be the payment of ad-valorem court fees in an original civil suit, which, if not paid, could lead to its dismissal.
Timeline of Events
First High Court case (CR-4067-2012) in the series of litigation (from JSON).
High Court case CR No. 3995/2015 initiated or continued, leading to the impugned order.
Impugned final judgment and order passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana in CR No. 3995/2015.
Special Leave Petition (Diary No. 11630/2018) filed in the Supreme Court.
Interlocutory applications for condonation of delay and exemptions filed.
Supreme Court hears the matter and passes the present order, disposing of the SLP.
Key Factual Findings
Delay in filing and refiling of the Special Leave Petition is condoned.
Source: Current Court Finding
The impugned order of the High Court does not call for any interference under Article 136 of the Constitution.
Source: Current Court Finding
The petitioner (plaintiff in the original suit) has not paid the ad-valorem court fee payable on the plaint.
Source: Inferred from Court's Direction
Primary Legal Issues
Secondary Legal Issues
Statutes Applied
Petitioner's Arguments
The petitioner, through counsel, implicitly argued for interference with the impugned High Court order, likely contending that the High Court's decision (potentially related to the court fee issue) was erroneous or harsh, and sought a favorable outcome or an opportunity to rectify any deficiencies, including the delay in filing the SLP.
Respondent's Arguments
No counsel appeared for the respondents in the Supreme Court, but their implicit argument, based on the court's decision, would be to uphold the High Court's order and resist any interference by the Supreme Court.
Court's Reasoning
The Supreme Court, after condoning the delay in filing the SLP, considered the merits of the appeal. It found no compelling reason to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution to interfere with the High Court's impugned order. However, demonstrating judicial discretion and a pragmatic approach, the Court granted the petitioner a final opportunity of two months to pay the requisite ad-valorem court fee for the underlying civil suit, stating that failure to do so would result in the dismissal of the suit.
- Emphasis on finality of litigation (refusal to interfere)
- Pragmatic approach / Granting one last opportunity (for court fee payment)
Impugned Orders
Specific Directions
- 1.Delay in filing and refiling the Special Leave Petition is condoned.
- 2.The Supreme Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order of the High Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.
- 3.The petitioner (plaintiff in the original suit) is granted two months' time to pay ad-valorem court fee payable on the plaint.
- 4.If the court fee amount is paid, the trial Court shall proceed to decide the suit on merits in accordance with law.
- 5.If the court fee is not paid, the suit shall stand dismissed.
Precedential Assessment
Non-Binding (Procedural)
This is a short order declining to interfere under Article 136 and giving a procedural direction. It does not lay down a new principle of law or interpret a statute in a novel way. Its value is primarily illustrative of the Supreme Court's discretionary power in procedural matters.
Tips for Legal Practice
Legal Tags
Disclaimer: eCourtsIndia (ECI) is not a lawyer and this analysis is generated by ECI AI, it might make mistakes. This is not a legal advice. Please consult with a qualified legal professional for matters requiring legal expertise.
Order Issued After Hearing
Purpose:
Fixed Date by Court
Before:
Hon'ble Abhay Manohar Sapre, Hon'ble Mohan M. Shantanagoudar
Stage:
FRESH (FOR ADMISSION) - CIVIL CASES
Remarks:
Disposed off
Listed On:
24 Sept 2018
In:
Judge
Category:
UNKNOWN
Interlocutory Applications:
103195/2018,103196/2018,103197/2018,103198/2018,
Original Order Copy
Get a certified copy of this order
Order Text
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) Diary No(s). 11630/2018
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 13-12-2017 in CR No. 3995/2015 passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh)
DIWAN SINGH DECEASED THROUGH LRS Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
GIAN KAUR & ORS. Respondent(s)
(FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.103197/2018-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING and IA No.103195/2018-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.103196/2018-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. and IA No.103198/2018-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING)
Date : 24-09-2018 This matter was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Sandeep Sudhakar Deshmukh, AOR Mr. Vasim Siddiqui,Adv.
For Respondent(s)
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R
Delay condoned.
We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order as in our opinion it does not call for any interference in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we grant two month's time to the petitioner(plaintiff) to pay ad-valorem court fee payable on the plaint. Digitally signed by ANITA MALHOTRA Date: 2018.09.25 17:12:54 IST Reason: Signature Not Verified
1
In case court fee amount is paid on the plaint, the trial Court shall proceed to decide the suit on merits in accordance with law, failing which the suit shall stand dismissed.
In view of the above, the special leave petition stands disposed of.
Pending application shall also stand disposed of.
(ANITA MALHOTRA) (SAROJ KUMARI GAUR) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER