1. Application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC to set aside an ex parte decree on ground of fraudulent service. (Para 3 )
Back
Next 
2000 Supreme(SC) 1347
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.P.Misra : N.Santosh Hegde
Praveen Kumar
Versus
Suresh Chand
Case No. : 4567 of 2000
Date of Decision : 8/16/00
Revisional courts cannot interfere with the trial court's findings of fact unless there is a jurisdictional error or manifest injustice; they may not simply re-weigh evidence to substitute their own view.
Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order 9 Rule 13 - Setting aside ex parte decree - Service of process - Validity of service. (Para 3)
(B) Revisional Jurisdiction - Scope and limits - High Court, while exercising revisional power, should not interfere with findings of fact recorded by the trial court unless the trial court committed a jurisdictional error or the decision resulted in manifest injustice - Revisional court should not substitute its own view by re-weighing evidence. (Para 4)
Facts of the case:
An application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Code was filed to set aside an ex parte decree, alleging that the process was not duly served due to fraud and forged signatures. The trial court, relying on the opinion of a handwriting expert, concluded that the parties were not served and set aside the decree. The High Court, in a revision petition, overturned this finding and held that service had been completed.
Findings of Court:
The High Court erred in interfering with the findings of fact. Since the trial court reached its conclusion after considering the evidence and the handwriting expert's opinion, and without committing any jurisdictional error, the High Court should not have re-evaluated the evidence to reach a different conclusion.
Issues: Whether the High Court was justified in overturning the trial court's finding of fact regarding the non-service of process under its revisional jurisdiction.
Ratio Decidendi: A revisional court's interference with findings of fact is permissible only in cases of jurisdictional error or manifest injustice. The court cannot re-weigh evidence to substitute its own opinion if the lower court's decision is not perverse or legally flawed.
Result: Appeal allowed and order of the High Court set aside.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Appellants alleged fraudulent service and forged signatures; respondent denied, arguing service was valid. (Para 3 , 4 )
3. High Court erred by re-weighing evidence under revisional power when trial court found no jurisdictional error or manifest injustice. (Para 4 )
4. Revisional court cannot interfere with a finding of fact unless there is jurisdictional error or manifest injustice. (Para 4 )
5. Appeal allowed; High Court order set aside; trial court order restored; case remanded for expeditious disposal. (Para 6 )
6. What is the scope of revisional jurisdiction under the Civil Procedure Code regarding findings of fact?
A revisional court can interfere with a finding of fact only if the trial court committed a jurisdictional error or its decision resulted in manifest injustice. (Para 4 )
A.P.MISRA, J.
(1) LEAVE granted.
(2) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.
(3) THE appellants filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Code for setting aside the ex parte decree. The case of the appellants is that the process was not duly served on them and the process-server played fraud and forged the signatures of the appellants. The trial court permitted the signatures to be testified by the handwriting expert who gave the same opinion. The trial court relying upon the opinion of the handwriting expert came to the conclusion that the appellants had not been duly served hence allowed the application and set aside the ex parte decree. Against that the respondent preferred a revision in the High Court. The High Court set aside the findings of the trial court and held that the appellants have been served. This decision of the High Court is challenged before us.
(4) HAVING heard learned counsel for the parties, we find that on the question whether there was service on the appellants or not, the High Court fell into error. When the trial court after taking into consideration the evidence on the record including the opinion of the handwriting expert came to the conclusion that there was no service and allowed the application, then the High Court could only under its revisional power have interfered if the trial court committed any jurisdictional error, or its decision would have resulted in any manifest injustice. The trial court not having committed any such error the High Court should not have interfered with the finding recorded by it. On the other hand the High Court entered into weighing the evidence and recording that the trial court should not have found no service, only because the handwriting expert says so.
(5) HENCE, the High Court should not have interfered with the finding of fact recorded by the trial court.
(6) ACCORDINGLY, the present appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 3-11-1998 of the High Court is set aside and that of the trial court restored. The appeal is remanded back to the trial court to proceed with the suit expeditiously as the matter is old.
