The term ‘hearing’ spoken of in Order XLI, Rule 16, CPC at least envisages oral arguments. In the same vein Rule 30 of Order XLI of CPC also envisages a hearing before pronouncement of judgment. When Rule 16 is read in the light of Articles 4 and 10-A of the Constitution which provide a citizen with a right to be dealt with according to due process of law and which confer the right of a fair trial and due process on a person in the matter of determination of his civil rights and obligations, it becomes clear that great emphasis not to forget importance has been laid on the aspect of adequate opportunity of hearing to a party in the matter of determination of his/her civil rights and obligations. The disposal of the appeal under discussion was unarguably undertaken without hearing and a few days adjournment of the appeal would not have allowed heavens to fall. In his enthusiasm and zeal to dispose of the matter expeditiously the appellate court lost sight of established principles with respect to disposal of appeals and which zeal ironically has delayed the 6 disposal of the matter rather than expedite it. Justice hurried is justice buried or that justice rushed is justice crushed is not a meaningless hackneyed cliché but is rather quite meaningful and in fact now supported by constitutional underpinnings. The appellate court by doing as it has done has not only violated the provisions of CPC noted above but has also caused an affront to Articles 4 and 10-A of the Constitution and has rendered his judgment to be set at naught only for this simple reason!
C.R. No.116-D of 2022
Shabbir Ahmad, etc. Versus Mst. Shaher Bano, etc.
0 Comments