Supreme Court of India

PAPANNA AND ANR. ETC.versusSTATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS. ETC.

Citation: 1995 INSC 665
Decided: 1 November 1995
Disposal: Dismissed
Bench: K RAMASWAMYB N KIRPAL

Holding

The appeals stand abated and are dismissed because the decree is common and indivisible and the legal representative of the second appellant has not been brought on record.

Summary

The appellants filed Civil Appeals Nos. 6258‑59 of 1983 challenging the validity of a notification issued under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. The decree sought to be challenged was common to all appellants and was indivisible. The court had earlier directed the senior‑advocate‑designated counsel to inform the parties to make alternative arrangements, but no such notice was given and the parties did not appear. It was also observed that the legal representative of the second appellant had not been brought on record. Because the decree was common and indivisible and a necessary party’s representative was absent, the court held that the appeals stood abated. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed without any order as to costs.

Issues considered

Whether an appeal against a common and indivisible decree may continue when the legal representative of a party has not been brought on record.
Whether the court has a duty to inform parties of a counsel's designation as senior advocate, or whether that duty rests solely with the counsel.

Legislation cited

Land Acquisition Acts. 4(1)

Subjects

Land Acquisition Actsection 4(1)appeal abatementlegal representativesenior advocate dutycommon decreeindivisible decreeCivil Procedure CodeOrder 22 Rules 3 & 4

Judgment

A                         PAPANNA AND ANR. ETC.
                                           v.
                  STATE OF KARNATAKAAND ORS. ETC.

                              NOVEMBER l, 1995

B                 (K. RAMASWAMY AND B.N. KIRPAL, JJ.].

          Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

          Order 22 Rules 3 & 4-Legal Representatives of one of the many
C   parties-Not brought on record-Appeal abates against all since the decree is
    conimon and indivisible.

          Practice & Procedure :

          Advocate on record-Designated as Senior Advocat~rofessional
D duty of counsel to intimate his clients for making alternative aTTangements.
          I!! these appeals, notices were issued to the appellants to make
    alternative arrangements in place of their counsel being designated as
    Senior Advocate, despite the fact that it was no part of the duty of this
    Court and it is the professional duty of the counsel concerned. But there
E   was no compliance.

           Dismissing the appeals, this Court

          HELD : In view of the fact that the decree challenging the validity of
    the notification under section 4(1) of the Land Ac11uisition Act being
F   common to all the appellants and being indivisible, the appeals stand
    abated against all since the legal representatives of the second appellant
    have not been brought on record till date. [693-D]

           CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 6258-59
     of 1983 Etc.
G
          From the Judgment and Order dated 8.4.83 of the Karnataka High
     Court in W.A. No. 1324-25 of 1982.

           P.R. Ramascsh for the Respondent No. 5.

H          K.R. Nagaraja for the Respondents Nos. 1-4.
                                       692
                           PAPANNAv. STATE                                693

      The following Order of the Court was delivered :                           A
       After Mr. KN. Bhat was designated as Senior Advocate, the Registry
had issued noticed to all the appellants to make alternative arrangements
as early as in 1987-88 and the same were served on all the appellants except
appellant No. 2 who was reported to be dead. None has entered ap-
pearance through counsel nor did they appear in person today. As a matter        B
of fact, it is the professional duty of the counsel, on being designated as
Senior Advocate, to intimate that fact to all his clients and request them
to make alternative arrangements to engage another advocate-on/record.
It is no part of the duty of this Court to inform the parties. However, it has
aheady been done. In view of the fact that the decree challenging the            C
validity of the notification under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act
being common to all the appellants and being indivisible, the appeals stand
abated against all since the legal representatives of the second appellant
have not been brought on record till date.

      The appeals are accordingly dismissed. No costs.                           D
G.N                                                      Appeals dismissed.

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Try "Land Acquisition Act"Sign in to search