Parties to litigation can't be expected to wait indefinitely for reasoned order: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Monday disapproved of an order passed by the Telangana High Court in June after noting that it was still not available with the parties or uploaded on the High Court website. [K Madan Mohan Rao v. Bheemrao Baswanthrao Patil].A Bench of Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Bela M Trivedi noted the 'unsavory situation' in deciding the application before it, and set aside the order. "...we are constrained to observe that a party to the litigation cannot be expected to wait indefinitely for availability of the reasons for the order of the Court. Moreover, when the matter relates to the election petition under the Act of 1951, which itself is a time-sensitive matter, we find no reason that the appellant be relegated to the statutory remedy of appeal under Section 116A of the Act of 1951 in this case.".While making it clear that it was not expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Bench directed that the matter be placed for necessary orders and assignment before the Chief Justice of the High Court..The grievance raised was that an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) moved in an election petition before the High Court was taken up for consideration after a considerable delay. After a prolonged hearing, the order was pronounced on June 15 this year, allowing the application and rejecting the election petition. However, the reasoned order allowing the application was still not available..Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi informed the Bench that the appellant had even earlier approached the Supreme Court after a delay in hearing the election petition. The High Court's Chief Justice then assigned the matter to another judge, who initially reserved it in December 2021, and then re-reserved in April this year after fresh written submissions. Singhvi argued that the order called for interference, given that the detailed order was still not out after three months of it being pronounced. Senior Advocate Harin Raval, appearing for the respondents, opposed this. He argued that the appeal in the present case lies with the High Court first and without the same having been constituted, the present plea before the top court does not merit consideration. .The Bench at the outset said that it was "indisputable that this litigation, by its very nature, calls for expeditious proceedings while being assigned a specific priority by the Court dealing with the same."On the delay in uploading the detailed order, the Court said it was the same was 'difficult to countenance'. It thus held,"...the order dated 15.06.2022, as said to have been passed by the High Court in disposal of the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, deserves to be disapproved only for the reason that even until this date, the reasons for the said order are not available with either of the parties nor are available on the website of the High Court nor the copy of the order has been supplied despite the parties having made the applications seeking certified copy of the order.".[Read order]