The Single Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of Aftab Ahmad & Anr vs Mirza Aziz Beg consisting of Justice C. Hari Shankar observed that the discretionary orders of the Trial Court, passed within its jurisdiction and not suffering from any perversity/illegality, cannot be interfered with under Article 227.
Facts
This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution assailed the impugned order passed by the learned Additional Rent Controller (“the learned ARC”) in Mirza Aziz Beg v. Aftab Ahmad & Anr. whereby the learned ARC closed the opportunity of the petitioner, who was the respondent in the said eviction petition, to file written statement.
Contentions Made
Respondent: On 10th December 2019, one month’s time was granted to the respondent to file written statement and no written statement had been filed till 24th September 2020. It was in these circumstances that the learned ARC had closed the petitioner’s right to file written statement. The order is clearly within the jurisdiction of the learned ARC. It is not even open to the petitioner to raise the oft-cited plea of the COVID-19 pandemic as a ground to interfere with the impugned order, as the time available with the petitioner to file the written statement expired much before the COVID-19 pandemic was visible on the horizon.
Observations of the Court
The Bench observed that Article 227 of the Constitution of India confers supervisory jurisdiction on the court. Discretionary orders passed by the trial court, which are passed within its jurisdiction and do not suffer from any perversity or illegality cannot be interfered with under Article 227; else, this Court would be ignoring the long line of precedents regarding Article 227.
The Bench went on to observe that the court is proscribed, in exercise of Article 227 jurisdiction, even from going into the correctness of the orders passed by the court below. Even if the order under challenge is erroneous, that cannot by itself justify interference under Article 227, where no case for correction is made out. However, it was noted that the Court be justified in interfering, where the order of the Court has been passed in lawful exercise of discretion vested in the Court, and where such exercise cannot be said to suffer from any perversity.
Judgment
The Bench, finding no illegality in the impugned order, dismissed the present petition.
The Learned Counsel for the petitioner fervently pleaded that, if the written statement is not taken on record, the petitioner would lose his right to defend the eviction petition. So it was also held that the right is reserved with the petitioner to take up the same issue with the learned ARC and the learned ARC would be at liberty to take an appropriate view thereon as per law.
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
