The Division Bench of the Supreme Court consisting of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Bela M. Trivedi held that the High Court exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India does not act as a court of first appeal to reappreciate, reweigh the evidence or facts upon which the determination under challenge is based. Supervisory jurisdiction is not to correct every error of fact or even a legal flaw when the final finding is justified or can be supported.

Facts

In 2011, the respondent before the Bench filed a civil suit on the original side of the Delhi High Court for the recovery of Rs.81,24,786.23p against the appellant. The appellant contested the suit by filing written statement on various grounds, inter alia, claiming that the goods were not accepted or returned due to reasons mentioned in debit notes and in fact, the respondent owes Rs.88,785/- to the appellant. After the admission and denial of documents and framing of issues, the suit was set for trial. The respondent as the plaintiff lead evidence and the case was put up for the appellant’s evidence.

Procedural History

  • The sole proprietor of the appellant was arrested by the Rajasthan Police in an unrelated case, and thereafter he was sent to judicial custody and detained. Later he was released on bail. It is the appellant’s case that due to the detention; the appellant was prevented from effectively contesting and participating in the civil suit. Consequently, since none appeared for the appellant, the Joint Registrar, Delhi High Court, directed closure of the defence evidence.
  • On raising the plea of pecuniary jurisdiction, the suit was transferred to the court of District Judge, Tis Hazari, Delhi.
  • On an application moved by the appellant, the Additional District Judge (“ADJ”) recalled the order directing closure of defence evidence and the appellant was granted opportunity to lead defence evidence subject to costs of Rs.5,000/-.
  • As Shailendra Garg was incarcerated, the ADJ on the next date of hearing observed that the counsel for the appellant should have filed an application for issuance of production warrant to enable Shailendra Garg to appear before court. Cost of Rs.5,000/- was imposed and the case was adjourned for recording of the defence evidence.
  • Consequent to the order, the counsel for the appellant moved an application for issuance of production warrant for the appearance of Shailendra Garg. Accepting the application, the ADJ ordered for the issuance of production warrant for appearance of Shailendra Garg from Central Jail, Jaipur.
  • Constable thereupon, had appeared along with written communication from the Jail Superintendent, Jaipur, Rajasthan, seeking clarifications whether Shailendra Garg was on bail in that matter or not. The ADJ rejected the request for clarifications observing that Shailendra Garg should have been produced but did not issue further directions as it was stated by the respondent that the suit was required to be re-transferred to the High Court in view of the Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Act, 2015. It was listed for arguments on the said aspect.
  • After hearing arguments, the suit was directed to be transferred to the High Court, but the suit was directed to be renumbered and listed before the ADJ.
  • The ADJ rejected the request for want of an appropriate affidavit, notwithstanding that it was known that Shailendra Garg was in jail and not in the position to appear and follow up the civil suit. After recording the aforesaid position, the suit was nevertheless adjourned for recording of defence evidence on payment of costs of Rs.5000/-.
  • On a later date, the counsel for the appellant did not appear and the defence evidence was closed. Final arguments were heard, and the case was fixed for clarification. An ex-parte judgment was passed, decreeing the suit filed by the respondent in the sum of Rs.81,24,786.23p along with pendente lite interest at the rate of 24 percent per annum and post decree interest at the rate of 18 percent per annum till the realization.
  •  Shailendra Garg was released on bail and within 10 days of his release he filed an application under O9R13 of the Code for setting aside of the ex-parte decree. Upon consideration of the facts, vide detailed reasoned order dated 24th July 2018, the application was allowed, setting aside the ex-parte decree, restoring it to its original number and listing it for defence evidence.
  • The respondent preferred a miscellaneous petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, which was allowed since the counsel for the appellant had applied and taken certified copy of the judgment which shows that the appellant was represented by his counsel even at that stage. The contention of the appellant that he acquired knowledge of the decree only after his release from custody was wrong. In view of the aforesaid facts, the trial court should not have accepted the argument that the appellant and his counsel were not in communication during the period when the appellant was in judicial custody. Earlier, the application for reopening the defence evidence was filed by pairokar of the appellant.

Observations of the Court

The Bench observed that:

“We are clearly of the view that the impugned order is contrary to law and cannot be sustained for several reasons, but primarily for deviation from the limited jurisdiction exercised by the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Supervisory jurisdiction is not to correct every error of fact or even a legal flaw when the final finding is justified or can be supported. The High Court is not to substitute its own decision on facts and conclusion, for that of the inferior court or tribunal. The jurisdiction exercised is in the nature of correctional jurisdiction to set right grave dereliction of duty or flagrant abuse, violation of fundamental principles of law or justice.”

It observed that if it was felt that the application for setting aside the ex-parte decree was filed belatedly, the court could have given an opportunity to the appellant to file an application for condonation of delay and costs could have been imposed. The facts as known, equally apply as grounds for condonation of delay. It is always important to take a holistic and overall view and not get influenced by aspects which can be explained. Thus, the reasoned decision of the trial court on elaborate consideration of the relevant facts did not warrant interference in exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution.

Judgment

The bench set aside the impugned order and restored the order dated 24th July 2018 passed by the ADJ, allowing the application under O9R13 of the Code, and set aside the ex-parte decree. The Bench also gave additional directions and suggestions regarding production warrants.

Case Name: M/S Garment Craft vs Prakash Chand Goel

Citation: Civil Appeal a/o. of SLP (C) No. 13941/2021

Bench: Justice Sanjiv Khanna, Justice Bela M. Trivedi

Decided on:11th January 2022

Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com

Picture Source :

 
Ayesha