M. P. Thakkar, J. - (1.) "Justice", we do not tire of saying, must not only be done", but ,'must be seen to be done". And yet at times some Courts suffer from temporary amnesia and forget these words of wisdom. In the result, a Court occasionally adopts a procedure which does not meet the high standards set for itself by the judiciary. The present matter falls in that unfortunate category of cases. That is the reason why, though we do not feel very happy in doing so, we have had to grant special leave for disposing of the appeal not on merits, but only for the purpose of setting aside the impugned judgment rendered by the learned Additional District Judge, Moradabad. To set it aside on the ground that the procedure adopted by the learned Judge at the hearing of the appeal was not just and fair. And in order to consequently remand the matter for hearing the appeal afresh with a view to dispose it of on merits in accordance with law.
(2.) The order sheet of May 20, 1983 of the record of the appeal in the Court of the learned District Judge shows that the appellant sought adjournment on the ground of indisposition of his senior counsel from Saharanpur with a request that the appeal be adjourned to some date in July. The learned Additional District Judge refused the prayer but granted three days' time for making alternative arrangement and directed that the appeal be posted for hearing of further arguments on May 23, 1983. Her further directed that in the event of failure to urge arguments on May 23, 1983, 'the judgment will be pronounced'. Even so, the appellant again sought an adjournment on the ground that he could not secure the services of his seniour counsel from Saharanpur as he was not able to appear till the month of July, and prayed for some time to engage a senior councel from Moradabad. The learned Additional District Judge refused the adjournment on the ground that more than sufficient time bad been granted for additional arguments, rejected the prayer for adjournment, and then added: "The judgment is ready which is delivered." The appeal was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge by pronouncing the judgment which the learned Judge had kept ready for being delivered. As the Act does not provide for any further appeal or revision, the High Court was approached under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India, but the High Court rejected the writ petition in limine. Hence the present appeal by special leave.
(3.) The following facts emerge from the order-sheet: (1) On May 12, 1983 the learned Additional District judge had felt that the request made by the appellant for further arguments was justified and had granted it. (2) On May 20, 1983 the Court granted only three days' time to make alternative arrangement in view of the fact that the senior counsel from Saharanpur, engaged by the appellant was not in a position to appear on account of illness. (3) On 23rd May, 1983, the arguments were to be heard. Notwithstanding that the arguments were yet to be heard on this date, the learned Judge had kept the judgement ready for pronouncing, which he pronounced forthwith whilst refusing the prayer adjournment made by the appellant with a view to engage a senior advocate from the local bar since the advocate from Saharanpur already engaged by him was not available.;