Tripathi never showed interest,HC had said

The majority judgment of Justices S U Khan and Sudhir Agarwal,which rejected Tripathi’s application as “mischievous” has described the sequence of events and Tripathi’s conduct in detail.

It points out that even in his deferment application,Tripathi did not mention that there was any possibility of settlement,or he had made efforts to persuade the parties to arrive at a settlement,or there was some method by which an attempt can be made to settle the dispute.

In his favour is the dissenting order of Justice D V Sharma,third judge on the bench,who said he did not agree with the reasoning that Tripathi had filed his application to create obstruction in the final disposal of the matter.

The majority judgment recalled that during the hearing,the court “made efforts by requesting learned counsel for the parties to find out the possibility of compromise,if any. Some of the parties very bluntly told us that in the nature of the rights asserted by them,the scope of compromise is absolutely nil. None was ready to part away even a single inch of land.”

On July 26,when reserving the judgment,“we made another effort and passed an order informing the parties that on July 27,2010,we shall sit in chamber to find out any possibility of resolving the dispute amicably,” the judgment said. On July 27,“the learned counsels for parties very frankly and succinctly expressed their view that there is no question of any settlement”,said the judges.

Still the court passed an order,“leaving it open to the parties that before delivery of judgment,if they find any possibility of compromise,they may approach the OSD,requesting for the formation of bench”.

Justices Khan and Agarwal describe the conduct of Tripathi during the 90-day hearing and also during the bench’s efforts to facilitate a settlement. “The applicant’s counsel did not advance any argument….Though at one point of time,he (the counsel) informed the court that he will address the matter on merits,but when his turn came,he did not appear”,they said. When the judges met in chamber on July 27 to know the responses of the counsel to their suggestion for a settlement,“neither the applicant nor his counsel attempted to participate in the proceedings”.

The judges said that on July 26,when the court reserved the judgment,it stated that the verdict would be pronounced in the second fortnight of September. On September 8,after about a month and half,the court fixed September 24 as the date for delivery of judgment. “The applicant kept silent over the matter throughout”,said the majority judgment.