Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
Division bench comprising Justices N Kotiswar Singh and S Hukato Swu while adjudicating the matter Rukuvota Ringa & Ors versus Meyalemale & ors overruled Gauhati high court opinion and supported madras high court's view that it was more reasonable to interpret Art 226(3) as only directory.
In one of the suits before Gauhati high court, the applicant filed on interlocutory Application on 21st Jan, 2020 challenging exparte order. Single judge bench dismissed the application on 12 Feb on lapse of time limit however records the date of application as 31st Jan, 2020.
while challenging the order dated 12 Feb the divisional bench went a step ahead in deciding the time bar mentioned under A 226(3) is directory or mandatory?
Finally, High court took Madras high court's side that it was more reasonable to interpret Article 226(3) as directory.
The Gauhati High court reasoned its decision by stating "... in our considered opinion, clause (3) to A 226 should be read as directory. In other words, in-spite of placing the time limit of 2 weeks to dispose of the application filed for vacating an ex-parte interim order, the high court in exercise of inherent power to secure ends of justice and to prevent abuse of the process of the court may consider an application beyond 2 weeks".
Nevertheless, court further added " Keeping in the mind the purpose of the constitutional amendment, which is to prevent any undue prolonging of ex-parte interim order, such consideration beyond 2weeks must be done very sparingly and only in exceptional circumstances as has been dealt with in the Madras high court case as well as in the present case, because of waiver by the applicant".
Thus the matter was placed before the chief justice of Gauhati high court so that it can be referred to a larger bench.
86540
103860
630
114
59824