http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  4139 of 2006

PETITIONER: Suresh Chandra Nanhorya                          

RESPONDENT: Rajendra Rajak & Ors.                                    

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 14/09/2006

BENCH: ARIJIT PASAYAT & LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 24398 of 2004

ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

       Leave granted.

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. 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 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 was passed. There is no  finding recorded that any notice was in fact issued.  Unfortunately, the High Court did not consider this aspect  and dismissed the 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. The order of the High Court reads as follows: " xxx           xxx                     xxx The trial Court has obviously mis- interpreted the provisions in Order VII Rule  11(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.  The revision is allowed\005.".

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

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 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 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: "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’."

Since then the principle has been chiselled, honed and  refined, enriching its content.  In Mullooh 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."

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 of miscarriage of justice.  On that score alone, the appeal deserves to be allowed.   The order 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.