You should file the revision which will be heard by the same bench.
Interpretation of High Court order
High court has passed order in Writ Petition by substituting order of LAC. However the said order is absolute confusing. Question. : 1. whether I can file application in HC for the interpretation of order passed OR to understand the correct meaning ? 2. Or same application can be filed in Trial Court, where my suit is pending being the High Court order is related with my pending suit. 3. Under what section / article / order / rule , such type of application to be filed. 4. whether the said application for interpretation will appear before the same Judge, who passed the order. Thanks
Asked 4 years ago in Civil Law
First answer received in 10 minutes.
Lawyers are available now to answer your questions.
20 Answers
You might not able to interpret it, your lawyer will do.
You can file review in same court and request for clarification of order.
If order is confusing and you are unable to understand you can ask your lawyer to explain it to you
2) you can apply to HC for speaking to minutes of order if there is mistake in the order
3) no need to apply to trial court
I was respondent before High Court in a Writ Petition filed by Petitioner, who is defendant in my pending partition suit in TC. The aggrived petitioner preferred Writ Petition to set aside the order of LAC. The Advocate of petitioner, offered some security, which will be kept till the disposal of suit pending. Therefore the HC substituted the order by keeping that security (against what is not mentioned) and by empowering the TC that TC will have liberty to grant relief and appropriate relief at the time of final judgment. I approched to another advocate for interpretation of that order particularly about the security (for whom it is kept). He said that security is against my share, for which the suit is pending in TC. I could not accept his say for no of reasons viz. 1. My share is in open land 2. My share is larger that the security is kept. 3. The jurisdiction goes to TC to decide my share. However He advice me to file revision application. Under his advice, After passing the order by HC, I filed review petition mentioning that, I never gave any consent to my advocate nor he discussed anything regarding the security , but HC rejected my application for the reason that 1. i was present in court room that day 2. my advocate is accepted the security offered by petitioner. Hence I posted my question on how to understand the correct interpretation of that security (for whom the security is kept and if it is against my share then how HC can take the jurisdiction of TC to decide my share, when the end result is yet to come in TC. Can I file application to request for interpretation of HC's order for whom such security is kept?
Asked 4 years ago
See if there is any mistake in order you can file speaking to minutes if not your advocate shall explain you same.
Sir, even my advocate is not understanding the order and secondly what is speaking to minutes
Asked 4 years ago
Without going through the order we cannot interpret the order
2) since your review petition has been dismissed wait for trial court to pass final orders in your case
3) HC has left it to the trial court to determine wha reliefs are to be granted to you in the pending suit
Speaking to minutes of order is for modification, correction of the mistakes in the order
Security is agasint the relief sought by petitioner. What was his prayer ?
See if the security is to be deposited it is before the registry of high court or lower TC pending the suit.
Speaking to minutes is when in order some mistake is there the court may pass an order on same to correct/clarify the mistake.
1. High Court has merely said that if at all you succeed in the partition suit, then the flat reserved as security can be considered by the trial court for giving relief to you
2. as to your apprehension that you claim relief in the share in open land and that the cost of the reserved flat is much lesser, then the HC order will not be interpreted to mean that the flat should be given to you IN LIEU OF YOUR SHARE IN THE LAND. If the TC considers the flat for giving relief to you, however the cost of such flat is not sufficient to cover the market value of your share in open land, then nothing stops the TC to order on the land to the extent that it is insufficient to cover your share in it. Meaning your partition suit will still be decreed, if your case is proved
3. also even if the TC passes any decree on basis of the reserved flat, then nothing stops you from filing first appeal against such decree
4. the HC has kept the flat reserved for you for your benefit. Till your partition suit is pending and in absence of a stay order on the construction, if your suit is decreed, then the TC is required to merely consider the reserved flat for granting you relief. The direction of HC in its order passed in writ petition is only 'directory' and not 'MANDATORY'
4. there is no application which can be made to HC for interpreting its own order. Your remedy is SLP in SC
5. Speaking to minutes is an application which is made to the court when there is an error or mistake in the order. In your case that is not so, particularly when the HC dismissed your review petition also.
we have a ancestor property, which is totally open plot. This property is undivided and in the name of my brother. He sold the entire plot to one builder by registered sale deed. I, immediately filed a suit for partition and possession of my 1/2 share in plot, along with interim application restrain builder from construction. However my application dismissed by TC, as my that time advocate was just prolonging the matter instead of initiating fast. I therefore changing advocate preferred appeal in District court, where LAC upheld my prayers and restrained builder from creating construction. Therefore the aggrieved respondent filed WP in HC, praying to set aside the order of LAC. when the said matter came up for hearing before HC, they submitted that, the respondent (that is I) has no share in the property therefore they were ready to keep one flat as a security in building which is almost about to complete (Please note, builder almost completed the building on entire plot , taking advantage whenever there was no interim orders from court). The HC asked my advocate about the offer , and he gave a signal without my consent and without considering my share is in open plot and no way my prayer in main suit has any connection with the building or flat etc. The HC considered without verifying my prayers of main pending suit, accepted the statement of advocate and substituted the order of LAC, which mainly can be read as : The Advocate of petitioner is ready to keep one flat in building till the disposal of suit pending in TC and it will be kept vacant and no third party interest will be created. The said statement is taken as undertaking to court, hence the order of LAC is substituted as below. The Flat in building will be kept vacant till the disposal of suit. no third party interest will be created. the TC is empowered to consider and grant appropriate relief at the time of final judgment. Hence my all posts are related to confusing order.
Asked 4 years ago
the issue as to whether you have any share in property would be decided at stage of final hearing by the trial court
2) if you are aggrieved by order file an appeal in SC as you have equal share in plot and mere recording undertaking not to sell one flat does not protect your interests
Where has the HC said anywhere that the prayers in your suit are to be substituted by his order of keeping a flat vacant for any appropriate relief
It's only a directory order and not a mandatory
The words 'appropriate relief' are important
That relief cannot go beyond your prayers in the suit
The flat is to be considered by TC only for appropriate relief, if you desire so and consent to it
If in final arguments you tell the TC judge that you do not wish to avail any relief through the reserved flat, then the judge will only look to the evidence of the parties and grant relief as sought for in the suit and not outside it
You was present in court, why not objected same time ? Undertaking is taken as security that in case you lost the case or if you have this much share than in return you will get offered flat. This means, if lower court find your share limited.
And if you succeeded. will have half land. Stay order still operative.
You can file a miscellaneous application in the said matter in high court for clarification of the said order.
The order means the builder shall not sale one flat pending rest he can complete the construction. and the said flat shall be in possession of builder and he wont sale same he can sale rest of flats and can complete registration and construction.
The interpretation of the order will be done by your lawyer because there is no procedure under which you can make application for interpretation of order.
You can file a review petition in high court
No you cannot make application in trail court for interpretation of High Court order.
The review petition will be heard by same bench in which passes the order in writ petition.
1. No such petition may be entertained by high court, you may have to get interpreted through your lawyer, what is his opinion to this?
2. No, the court will not entertain any such application.
3. See the above answers.
4. same as above.
The review petition dismissed by the high court is a clear indication that it would not entertain any petition from your side anymore in this regard and since there is no provision in law to interpret the judgment passed by any court.
You can consult another advocate who may be more knowledgeable and get it interpreted by producing the copies of the judgment to that experienced advocate.
In the last post of this thread you have given clear picture of the problem.
From your contents it can be seen that there was an arrangement offered by the builder before court to deposit the flat before court and the same would be kept without creating any charge or encumbrance till the disposal of suit.
You must understand that the high court has not given any judgment or opinion to the pending partition suit.
It is for the trial court to decide about the suit hence there is no problem for you to conduct the suit properly as per law and fight for your rights.
In my opinion, there is no adverse judgment by high court except that it has set aside the first appellate court's orders.
You can call any advocate of this forum for more clarifications over phone consultation.