SURESH CHANDRA NANHORYAversusRAJENDRA RAJAK AND ORS.

                    SURESH CHANDRA NANHORYA                                      A
                                      V.

                      RAJENDRA RAJAK AND ORS.

                          SEPTEMBER 14, 2006

      [ARIJIT PASAYAT AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, JJ.]                            B


      Code of Civil Procedure, 1908-Section 115-Civil Revision
Application-High Court passed adverse order against appellant by only
hearing the applicant's advocate without issuing any notice to the appellant-    C
Non-issuance of notice before disposal of Civil Revision-Propriety of-Held,
improper-It is a clear violation of the principles of natural justice-
Administrative Law-Natural justice.

     While disposing of a Civil Revision Application under S.115, CPC,
High Court passed adverse order against appellant by only hearing.the            D
applicant's advocate without issuing any notice to the appellant. Though
Review application was filed specifically pointing out that no notice had
been issued before disposal of the Civil Revision, High Court did not
consider that aspect and dismissed the review application. Challenge in
the present appeal is to the order passed by the High C:mrt in the Civil
Revision as well as in the Review Application.                                   E
      Allowing the appeal, the Court

      HELD: 1.1. A perusal of the High Court order itself shows that only
the applicant's advocate was heard. There is also even no mention that
any notice was issued to the appellant and/or it was served. An                  F
adjudication adverse to him was done by disposal of Civil Revision without
even issuance of notice before such adverse adjudication. It is a clear
violation of the principles of natural justice. (179-EJ

      1.2. Natural justice is an inseparable ingredient of fairness and          G
 reasonableness. It is even said that the principles of natural justice must
 be read into unoccupied interstices of the statute, unless there is a clear
 mandate to the contrary. Natural justice is the essence of fair adjudication,
 deeply rooted in tradition and conscience, to be ranked as fundamental.
·The purpose of following the principles of natural justice is the prevention
                                     177                                         H
    178                       SUPREME COUR r REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A of miscarriage of justice. (179-F; 180-BI
         Cooper v. Wandsworth Board of Works, (1963) 143 ER 414 and
    Mullooh v. Aberdeen, (1971( 2 All E.R. 1278, referred to.

          2. The orders passed by the High Court in the Civil Revision and
B the Review Application are accordingly set aside and the matter is remitted
    to the High Court for fresh consideration on merits after due notice to
    the appellant. ( 180-C(

          CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4139 of2006.

C       From the Judgment and Order dated 23.4.2004 of the High Court of
    Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Jabalpur in M.C.C. No. 574/2004.

        Rajavenkatappa Naik, Raja Raghvendra Naik. S.K. Tandon and
    Rameshwar Prasac Goyal for the Appellant.

D        Anoop G. Chaudhari, June Chaudhari, K.K. Mohan, B.S. Banthia and
    Vikrant Singh for the Respondents.

          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

          ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted.
E
          Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and order dated 7.2.2003 in
    Civil Revision No.144/2003 and the order dated 23.4.2004 in (Review
    Application) Misc. Civil No. 574/2004, passed by a learned Single Judge of
    Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur.

F         Though various points were urged in support of the appeal, the primary
    stand was that Civil Revision filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil
    Procedure, 1908 (in short the 'CPC') was allowed by the learned Single
    Judge even without issuing notice to the appellant. On knowing the order
    passed by learned Single Judge in the Civil Revision, the review application
G   was filed specifically pointing out that no notice had been issued before
    disposal of the Civil Revision. The High Court rejected the same as noted
    above.

          Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in the review petition
    it was categorically mentioned that without notice the order dated 7.2.2003
H   was passed. There is no finding recorded that any notice was in fact issued.
    SURESH CHANDRA NAN HOR YA v. RAJENDRA RAJ AK [PASAYA T, J.)179

Unfortunately, the High Court did not consider this aspect and dismissed the       A
review application. It is also submitted that the revision was not maintainable.

      Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand submitted that
though it may be a fact that notice was not issued before disposal of the Civil
Revision yet the orders do not warrant any interference as a right position in
law has been noted.                                                                B
      The order of the High Court reads as follows:

      "xxx               xxx                  xxx

            The trial Court has obviously mis-interpreted the provisions in C
        Order VII Rule l l(d) C.P.C. Under this rule the plaint can be rejected
        where the suit "appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred
        by any law". That is riot the situation here. The plaintiff has filed the
        suit for declaration of title and injunction and that can always be
        decided by the civil court irrespective of the decision of the revenue
        court under Section 250 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959.              D
        The revision is allowed ........ ".

       A perusal of the order itself shows that only the applicant's advocate
was heard. There is also even no mention that any notice was issued to the
present appellant and/or it was served. An adjudication adverse to him was         E
done by disposal of Civil Revision without even issuance of notice before
such adverse adjudication. It is a clear violation of the principles of natural
justice.

      Natural justice is an inseparable ingredient of fairness and
reasonableness. It is even said that the principles of natural justice must be     F
read into unoccupied interstices of the statute, unless there is a clear mandate
to the contrary.

     In the celebrated case of Cooper v. Wandsworth Board of Works, (1963)
143 ER 414, the principle was thus stated:
                                                                                   G
           "Even God did not pass a sentence upon Adam, before he was
       called upon to make his defence .. 'Adam', says God, 'where art thou'
       has thou not eaten of the tree whereof I commanded thee that 'thou
       should not eat'."
                                                                                   H
    180                       SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A         Since then the principle has been chiselled, honed and refined, enriching
    its content. In Mui/ooh v. Aberdeen, (1971) 2 All E.R. 1278, it was stated:

                ·'the right of a man to be heard in his defence is the most
            elementary protection."

B          Natural justice is the essence of fair adjudication, deeply rooted in
    tradition and conscience. to be ranked as fundamental. The purpose of
    following the principles of natural justice is the preventim1 of miscarriage of
    justice.

          On that score alone, the appeal deserves to be allowed. The order
C passed by the learned Single Judge in the Civil Revision and the Review
    Application are accordingly set aside and the matter is remitted to the High
    Court for fresh consideration on merits after due notice to the appellant.

          The appeal is allowed. No costs.

D B.B.B.                                                         Appeal allowed.




                                                                                      .