High Court of Meghalaya
M/S Anirudha Steel (P) Ltd. vs . Meghalaya Energy Corporation on 8 September, 2022
Serial No. 17
Regular List
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
AT SHILLONG
CRP No. 10 of 2019 Date of Decision: 08.09.2022
M/S Anirudha Steel (P) Ltd. Vs. Meghalaya Energy Corporation
EPIP, Byrnihat Ltd.
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice H. S. Thangkhiew, Judge
Appearance:
For the Petitioner/Appellant(s) : Mr. G. Khandelia, Adv.
Ms. P. Roy, Adv.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. S. Sahay, Adv.
Ms. R. Colney, Adv.
JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)
1. This petition under Article 227 impugns the order dated
30.12.2018 passed in Misc. Case No. 13/2017, arising out of Money Suit
Case No. 01 (T) of 2013, whereby an application under Section 5 of the
Limitation Act, 1963, for condonation of delay in filing a Review Petition
was rejected.
2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the
condonation application was rejected only on the ground that the
petitioner had not supplied a copy of the Review Petition to the Court or
to the opposite party, which he contends was incorrect as the Review
Petition was already on record before the Learned Trial Court. It is
submitted that the Trial Court had on a mere technical ground rejected
the condonation application which was for a delay of 51 days, which had
been explained in the application itself.
3. He therefore submits that, the rejection of the condonation
application on the ground of non-supply of the Review Petition is
erroneous and bad in law and facts, and as such, the impugned order is
liable to be set aside by this Court.
4. Mr. S. Sahay, learned counsel on behalf of the respondent
Corporation has raised strong objections on the maintainability of the
instant Petition under Article 227 and submits that no grounds have been
made out by the petitioner to warrant the exercise of supervisory
jurisdiction by this Court. It is submitted that the Trial Court did not lack
any jurisdiction to pass the impugned order and that the grievance of the
petitioner, is only against the merits of the order. He further submits that
any interference by this Court, will have the effect of the application
under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC, read with Section 56 of the Electricity
Act, 2003, which had been rejected and sought to be reviewed, being re-
opened, when no circumstances or grounds exist for review. As such, it
is submitted that the Revision Application being devoid of merit, be
dismissed.
5. From the submissions and materials on records, it can be seen
that the only issue in the instant matter concerns the dismissal of the
condonation application by the Trial Court on the ground that a copy of
the Review Petition was not supplied to the Court or the opposite party.
The reasoning can be seen, is based on the finding that in the condonation
application at Para - 4 it had been stated as follows:
"4. ......... that the petitioner craves the leave of
the Hon'ble court to refer to rely on the
statements made by it in the review application at
the time of hearing of this application and the
same may be treated to be a part and parcel of
this application."
However, it is noted that the petitioner has categorically stated
that the Review Application was already on record, and had been
registered as Misc. Case No. 12/2017, and that the opposite party was
well aware of the same. Taking this fact into consideration, though the
Trial Court did not lack jurisdiction in passing the impugned order, the
impugned order, apart from adopting a hyper technical approach, is also
not based on the records available before the Trial Court, which therefore
calls for limited interference.
6. Though, it has been advanced by the learned counsel for the
respondent Corporation that there is no patent lack of jurisdiction to
warrant the exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India, it is also true that this exercise of power is not limited only to this
aspect, but involves the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction over all
courts and tribunals throughout its territory.
7. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the
condonation application is directed to be re-heard afresh on merits. It is
however, emphasized that such hearing will be confined only to the delay
aspect and not on the merits of the Review Petition.
8. As it has been submitted that the suit has not proceeded though
there were no interim orders in operation, the Trial Court is directed to
dispose of the application for condonation of delay as expeditiously as
possible preferably within a period of 1(one) month from the date of
presentation of this order before the said Court.
9. For the aforesaid reasons, this Revision Petition stands allowed
and is accordingly disposed of.
10. No order as to costs.
Judge
Meghalaya
08.09.2022
"D.Thabah-PS"
