Supreme Court Orders

KS Palanisamy (D) vs Hindu Community in General And Citizens OF GobichettipalayamMA 548-549/2018 – Courts should not permit hearing of such an applications for ‘clarification’, ‘modification’ or ‘recall’ if the application is in substance a clever move for review. – Supreme Court dismisses an application for clarification. Says it is a review application in disguise. –

Om Parkash @ Atam Parkash vs Sohan Lal 6398-6399/2017A Civil suit of the year 1987. Dismissed by Trial Court. First Appeal also dismissed by the first appellate court. Second appeal filed by plaintiff in the year 1990 before Punjab & Haryana High Court. After 26 years, High Court allowed second appeal and decreed the suit in 2016. Defendant filed SLP before Apex Court in 2017. Now, six years later, Supreme Court allows appeal and sets aside High Court judgment noticing that the HC had disposed appeal in a very cryptic and telegraphic manner. High Court has been directed to take fresh decision in the second appeal. In short, a second appeal remained pending for 26 years in High Court which was ultimately allowed. Further, Supreme Court took another six years to find out that the High Court had disposed the second appeal in a very cryptic and telegraphic manner. Now RSA …./1990 is restored to the file of High Court !