AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
9 paragraphs · 200 wordsKurian, J. - Leave granted.
The appellant is aggrieved by the impugned orders dated 22.07.2016 and 16.09.2016. It is not in dispute that the order dated 22.7.2016 visited the appellant with adverse consequences. Therefore, he moved two applications, one for modification and the other for impleadment. It is seen from the impugned order dated 16.9.2016 that the application for modification has been dismissed and the application for impleadment is pending.
We have considered a similar issue vide our judgment dated 11.01.2017 rendered in Civil Appeals arising out of SLP (C) Nos.28640-28641/2016. For all the reasons stated therein, we allow these appeals to the following extent:-
i) The order dated 16.9.2016 in C.M. No.10845 of 2016 will stand set aside.
ii) The appellant shall stand impleaded as an additional respondent.
iii) We direct the High Court to hear the appellant on his application for modification of the order dated 22.07.2016 and pass fresh orders expeditiously and preferably within three months.
Till the orders are passed, as above, the interim order passed by this Court on 07.10.2016 will continue to operate.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.