Skip to main content

Dependent Order, doctrine of

2009 (1) SCC 240

In G. Ramegowda, Major and Others V/s. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bangalore, 1988 2 SCC 142, this Court held:

"10. We might, perhaps, deal with the latter submission of Shri Veerappa first. The fact that the main appeals are themselves, in the meanwhile, disposed of finally on the merits by the High Court would not by itself detract from and bar the consideration of the correctness of the order condoning the delays. This is an instance of what are called "dependent orders" and if the order excusing the delays is itself set aside in these appeals, the further exercise, made in the meanwhile, by the High Court finally disposing of the appeals, would be rendered nugatory. The submission of Shri Veerappa is, therefore, insubstantial."

28 We are, however, not oblivious that the said proposition of law is not absolute, as has been noticed by a Division Bench of this Court in Ajay Bansal V/s. Anup Mehta, 2007 2 SCC 275, wherein it was held:

"14. A decree passed subsequent to the refusal of leave to defend could either be under Or. 37 R. 3(6) of the Code or it could be based on the affidavit evidence on the side of the plaintiff and the documents produced or even based on oral evidence formally proving, say, the execution of a promissory note by the defendant. It may not be proper or necessary to apply the theory of "dependent order" in such circumstances. For one, the theory may not apply. Even if this Court were to set aside the order of the court below and give the defendant leave to defend the suit, the decree that is passed may not go automatically. It may have to be set aside. Secondly, the defendant can always go to the court which passed the decree and move under R. 4 of Or. 37 of the Code to reopen the decree."

The doctrine, therefore, must be applied having regard to the fact situation obtaining in each case.


Sandeep Jalan

Advocate

Law Referencer: https://www.vakeelkanumber.com/



Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Fraud / Misleading the Courts

AIR 2007 SC 1546 Para 21:  Now, it is well settled principle of law that if any judgment or order is obtained by fraud, it cannot be said to be a judgment or order in law. Before three centuries, Chief Justice Edward Coke proclaimed; "Fraud avoids all judicial acts, ecclesiastical or temporal". Para 22:  It is thus settled proposition of law that a judgment, decree or order obtained by playing fraud on the Court, Tribunal or Authority is a nullity and non est in the eye of law. Such a judgment, decree or order by the first Court or by the final Court has to be treated as nullity by every Court, superior or inferior. It can be challenged in any Court, at any time, in appeal, revision, writ or even in collateral proceedings. Para 23:  In the leading case of Lazarus Estates Ltd. V/s. Beasley, 1956 1 AllER 341, Lord Denning observed: "No judgment of a court, no order of a Minister, can be allowed to stand, if it has been obtained by fraud." ...
9 comments
Read more

Res Judicata, doctrine of

A three Judges bench of the Hon’ble SUPREME COURT, in the case of Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Versus State Of Uttar Pradesh, Judgment dated NOVEMBER 29, (2004 AIR 2005 SC 446 : 2005 (1) SCC 444) , observed as – Para 11: The principle of res judicata is based on the need of giving a finality to judicial decisions. The principle which prevents the same case being twice litigated is of general application and is not limited by the specific words of Sec. 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure in this respect. Res judicata applies also as between two stages in the same litigation to this extent that a court, whether the trial court or a higher court having at an earlier stage decided a matter in one way will not allow the parties to reagitate the matter again at a subsequent stage of the same proceedings. Satyadhyan Ghosal V/s. Deorajin Debi, AIR 1960 SC 941. A three Judges Bench of the Hon’ble SUPREME COURT, in the case of Satyadhyan Ghosal Versus Deorajin...
1 comment
Read more

Limitation principles

The Law of Limitation / Schedule The Limitation Act, 1963 LIMITATIONS The right of a person, if he has any, must be exercised within reasonable time, or else his said right will be forfeited as a penalty for his neglect. Laws come to the assist of the vigilant and not to the sleepy, so said by Salmond in his Jurisprudence. A period of three years has been prescribed for suits relating to accounts, contracts, and declarations; suits relating to decree and instruments; and suits relating to movable properties. A period varying from 1 to 3 years has been prescribed for suits relating to torts and miscellaneous maters. The doctrine of limitation is based on broad consideration, in the words of Abbott, CJ, in the case of Battley versus Faulkner, “the Statutes of limitation was intended for relief and quiet of the defendant and to prevent persons from being harassed at a distant point of time, after the committing of the injury complained of.” Also when the evide...
Post a Comment
Read more