Page 1

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.3958 OF 2013 [Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil)  

No.31353 of 2009]

SHAKUNTALABAI & ANR. ...APPELLANTS

VERSUS

NANAJI DEWAJI WADASKAR ...RESPONDENT

ORDER  

Delay condoned in application for restoration  

of special leave petition qua respondent Nos. 1 and  

3.

For the reasons stated in the application, it  

is  allowed  and  the  special  leave  petition  is  

restored qua respondent Nos. 1 and 3.

Leave granted.

The impugned order has been passed by the High  

Court  assuming  that  the  appeal  before  the  High  

Court was a Second Appeal.  This is patent from the  

judgment itself which mentions that the decision is  

rendered in Second Appeal No.339 of 2009.   

It has been pointed out by the learned counsel  

for the appellants that, in fact, the Court was  

seized only of the First Appeal.  This submission  

of  the  learned  counsel  is  borne  out  from  the  

grounds of appeal submitted before the High Court  

which mention First Appeal No.339 of 2009.   

...2/-

Page 2

:2:

A perusal of the judgment passed by the High  

Court shows that none of the submissions made by  

the  appellants  before  the  High  Court  have  been  

considered.   Furthermore,  the  judgment  does  not  

indicate the reasons for the conclusions recorded  

in the judgment.   

In view of the above, the judgment of the High  

Court is not sustainable.  The appeal is allowed.  

The  impugned  judgment  of  the  High  Court  is  set  

aside.  The matter is remanded back to the High  

Court for a decision on merits after giving due  

opportunity of hearing to all the parties.  

No costs.   

....................,J. (SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR)

....................,J. (PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE)

NEW DELHI APRIL 22, 2013