SC: All Parties Must Be Heard in ‘Minutes of Order’ Cases

Key Judicial Interpretation

The Supreme Court clarified that the practice of passing orders based on “Minutes of Order” requires careful consideration to ensure all necessary parties are impleaded and that such orders are lawful (paras 16-20).

Court’s View

The Court emphasized the importance of including all affected parties in legal proceedings and criticized the High Court for not ensuring that the tribals who might be affected by the wall construction were heard before the order was passed (para 21).

Conclusion

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order permitting the construction of the compound wall and remanded the case back to the High Court for a proper hearing with all necessary parties involved (para 23).

Relevant Acts, Sections, Provisions, and Rules Cited

Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Case of the Appellant

The appellants argued that their rights were adversely affected by the construction of the compound wall and that they were not given an opportunity to present their case, violating the principles of natural justice.

Appellant Relied On

The appellants relied on the fundamental principles of natural justice and procedural fairness, as well as specific affidavits from government officials indicating the impact on third parties.

Case of the Respondent

The respondents defended the High Court’s order, claiming that the construction of the wall did not prejudice anyone and was in compliance with previous court orders.

Respondent Relied On

The respondents relied on the “Minutes of Order” and the consent terms agreed upon in the earlier arbitration proceedings.

Question & Answer

Question: What did the Supreme Court say about the “Minutes of Order” practice?
Answer: The Supreme Court stated that the practice of passing orders based on “Minutes of Order” requires courts to ensure all necessary parties are impleaded and that such orders are lawful (paras 16-20).

Question: Why was the High Court’s order set aside by the Supreme Court?
Answer: The order was set aside because the High Court failed to ensure that the tribals who might be affected by the construction of the wall were given an opportunity to be heard (para 21).

Question: What did the Supreme Court direct the High Court to do on remand?
Answer: The Supreme Court directed the High Court to implead all necessary parties, including those likely to be affected by the wall’s construction, and to ensure the legality of any orders passed (para 23).

Question: How did the Supreme Court view the affidavits from government officials?
Answer: The Supreme Court considered the affidavits from the Deputy Superintendent of Police and the Superintendent of Land Records, which indicated that the construction would affect third parties (para 14).

Question: What is the importance of Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure in this case?
Answer: Order XXIII Rule 3 emphasizes that even consent orders must be lawful, and the court has the jurisdiction to decline passing a consent order if it is illegal (para 19).

Details of Case

Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Justice Abhay S. Oka, Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
Date of Order: April 30, 2024
Case Name: Ajay Ishwar Ghute & Ors. vs. Meher K. Patel & Ors.
Case No.: Civil Appeal No. 4786 of 2024