Telangana High Court
Shri B. Srinivasa Reddy vs Government Of Andhra Pradesh on 19 August, 2024
Author: P.Sree Sudha
Bench: P.Sree Sudha
THE HON'BLE SMT.JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA
Civil Revision Petition No.3234 of 2023
ORDER:
This revision petition is filed against the order dated 19.07.2023 passed in E.P.No.800 of 2022 in O.S.No.568 of 2014 on the file of the 14th Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad.
2. Heard arguments of Sri G.Arun, learned counsel for the petitioner (delete the name of Sri Sourabh Agarwal).
3. It is contended that suit is filed by plaintiff before the trial Court for recovery of amount in O.S.No.568 of 2014. On 09.07.2014 defendant No.5 remained as ex parte, on 14.10.2014, defendant Nos.3, 4 and 6 remained ex parte. However, after order of ex parte defendant Nos.3 and 4 filed vakalath but the order of ex parte was not considered by the Court and on 23.08.2022 judgment and decree passed against defendant Nos.3 and 4. It was further contended that E.P.No.800 of 2022 filed in O.S.No.568 of 2014 was filed on 24.11.2022 but the trial Court in its order dated 19.07.2023 dismissed the application with the following observation:
"The EP is dismissed declaring that the judgment and decree passed by this Court in O.S.No.568 of 2014 dated 23.08.2022 suffers from lack of inherent jurisdiction which amounts to nullity which is not executable. The petitioner/plaintiff is at liberty to 2 approach the proper forum subject to Section 14 of Limitation Act."
4. It is further contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that Commercial Court Act came into effect from 23.10.2015 as per Section 15 of Commercial Court Act, all suits and applications, including applications under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996), relating to a commercial dispute of a specified value pending in a High Court where a Commercial Division has been constituted, shall be transferred to the Commercial Division. In this Case, as the defendants remained ex parte somehow this matter was not transferred to the Commercial Court as such it cannot be held that there is lack of jurisdiction. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a citation reported in "Harish Tandon v. Prasenjit Biswas" 1 in which it was held as follows:
" In the factual matrix of the present case, the suit was not transferred to the Commercial Court under sub-section (2) of Section 15 of the Act of 2015. None of the parties to the suit approached the Civil Court to have the present suit withdrawn from the regular Court and transferred to the Commercial Court for trial. Though the plea has not been taken that Court below lacks inherent jurisdiction, yet we find that there is no fetter on the part of the appellant to take such plea at the appellate stage. Since, the 1 AIR 2023 Calcutta 46 3 present suit involves a commercial dispute within the meaning of the Act of 2015 and is to be tried by the Commercial Court. An order passed by a Court without jurisdiction over the subject matter or on other grounds which goes to the root of its exercise or jurisdiction, lacks inherent jurisdiction."
5. He further relied upon another citation reported in "A.R.Antulay v. R.S.Nayak" 2 wherein it was held as follows:
"All rules of court are nothing but provisions intended to secure proper administration of justice. It is, therefore, essential that they should be made to serve and be subordinate to that purpose."
In "Gujarat v. Ram Prakash" 3, reiterated the position by saying:
"Procedure is the handmaid and not a mistress of law, intended to subserve and facilitate the cause of justice and not to govern or obstruct it, like all rules of procedure, this rule demands a construction which would promote this Once judicial satisfaction is reached that the direction was not open to be made and it is accepted as a mistake of the court, it is not only appropriate but also the duty of the Court to rectify the mistake by exercising inherent powers. Judicial opinion heavily leans in favour of this view that a mistake of the 2 Law (SC)1988 (4) 69 3 [1970] 2 SCR 875 4 Court can be corrected by the Court itself without any fetters."
6. In view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and citations referred by him, this Court is of considered opinion to set aside the order of the trial Court and finds that it is just and reasonable to remand back the matter to the Commercial Court with a specific direction to conduct trial afresh by duly giving notice to the defendants and also giving reasonable opportunity to both sides as per the provisions of Commercial Court Act.
7. With the above said direction, civil revision petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.
___________________ P.SREE SUDHA, J Date:19.08.2024 Bw