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
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
AIR 2023 Calcutta 46
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
Law (SC)1988 (4) 69
[1970] 2 SCR 875
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
