SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1987 Supreme(SC) 261

A.P. SEN AND V. BALAKRISHNA ERADI, JJ.
Civil Appeal No. 1532 of 1978, D/- 24-2-1987.
P.R. Krishnamachari, Appellant
Versus
Lalitha Ammal, Respondent.

Headnote:

Determine Legality - Tamil Nadu Buildings Act, 1960 – Section 25Code Of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Section 115 - Whether High Court was justified in interfering with concurrent findings of fact reached by High Courts below under S. 25 of Tamil Nadu Buildings Act, 1960 – Held, Court has held that power conferred on High Court under S. 25 of Act is essentially of a supervisory nature, as it may call for records of Courts below with a view to determine only legality and propriety of orders passed – In facts and circumstances of present case, that test is not obviously fulfilled - There is no discussion at all in judgment, which court is sorry to say is rather perfunctory – Court is constrained to set aside judgment of High Court and remit revision petition for rehearing - Judgment and order passed by High Court are set aside - Revision Petition is remanded to High Court for disposal afresh according to law - High Court will endeavour to dispose of Civil revision petition expeditiously and in any event, not later than four months from today - It would be open to parties to raise such contentions as anavailable to them including effect of subsequent events – Appeal Allowed.

JUDGMENT :- The short point raised in this appeal is whether the High Court was justified in interfering with the concurrent findings of fact reached by the High Courts below under S. 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. The power conferred on the High Court under S. 25 of the Act may not be as narrow as the revisional power under S. 115 of the Civil P.C. But this Court had occasion to define the scope and extent of the revisional power of the High Court under the said section in the case of M/s Sri Raja Lakshmi Dyeing Works v. Rangaswamy Chettiar (AIR 1980 SC 1253). This Court has held that the power conferred on the High Court under S. 25 of the Act is essentially of a supervisory nature, as it may call for the records of the Courts below with a view to determine only the legality and propriety of the orders passed. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, that test is not obviously fulfilled. There is no discussion at all in the judgment, which we are sorry to say is rather perfunctory. We are constrained to set aside the judgment of the High Court and remit the revision petition for rehearing. Accordingly, the appeal succeeds and is allowed and the judgment and order passed by the High Court are set aside. The Revision Petition is remanded to the High Court for disposal afresh according to law. The High Court will endeavour to dispose of the Civil revision petition expeditiously and in any event, not later than four months from today. It would be open to the parties to raise such contentions as anavailable to them including the effect of subsequent events, if any, No costs.

Appeal allowed.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top