Delve into the intricate legal analysis carried out by the High Court in a recent PIL case, where the court annulled a crucial paragraph in the impugned order. The focus is on the nature of PIL and the unique role of the respondents. Follow along to understand how the court’s decision affects the dynamics of non-adversarial litigation.
Arguments
- Learned senior counsel for the appellants made several submissions regarding the appellants’ stand and the pending dispute between them and the respondent in Civil Suit No 554 of 2019 at the Court of Additional District Judge-3, South District, Saket Courts, New Delhi.
- The High Court is of the view that all relevant submissions, facts, and factors requiring clarification should be presented before the High Court.
Also Read: Court’s Jurisdiction in Re-appraising Arbitrator’s Findings
Analysis
- The appellants are allowed to make submissions before the High Court in response to the observations in the order being challenged.
- The High Court should treat the PIL as a non-adversarial litigation.
- The role given to the respondent as an amicus in paragraph 17 of the impugned order does not align with the nature of a PIL.
- The respondent, who brought certain facts to the court’s attention, is a disputant against the appellants in this case.
Also Read: Contrary Directions in Issuance of Letter of Intent
Decision
- The appeal has been disposed of at this stage itself.
- The matter is left open to be dealt with as a Public Interest Litigation (PIL).
- All relevant aspects of the matter are left open for examination by the High Court with the assistance of a micus curiae.
- Paragraph 17 of the impugned order is annulled.
Also Read: Application for Stay in Civil Suit Rejected: Court’s Legal Analysis
Case Title: SURESH SRIVASTAVA Vs. SUNDEEP BHUTORIA (2022 INSC 321)
Case Number: C.A. No.-002086-002086 / 2022
