The High Court's supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 should be sparingly exercised and is not meant to re-appreciate evidence or substitute its own judgment for that of the lower court.

Headnote:
Article 227 - Setting Aside Ex-Parte Decree - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order IX Rule 13
Fact of the Case:

The appellant, Shailendra Garg, was prevented from effectively contesting a civil suit due to his detention in jail, resulting in an ex-parte judgment against him. He subsequently filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure to set aside the ex-parte decree.
Finding of the Court:

The High Court allowed the application, setting aside the ex-parte decree, but the decision was later challenged by the respondent. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's decision to set aside the ex-parte decree was contrary to law and exceeded the limited jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Issues: The main issue was whether the High Court was justified in exercising powers under Article 227 to set aside the ex-parte decree.
Ratio Decidendi: The Supreme Court emphasized that the High Court's supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is not to act as a court of first appeal or reweigh the evidence. It should only be exercised in cases of grave dereliction of duty or violation of fundamental principles of law or justice.
Final Decision: The Supreme Court set aside the impugned order and restored the order allowing the application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code, thereby setting aside the ex-parte decree and the judgment.

JUDGMENT :

SANJIV KHANNA, J.

Leave granted.

2. Limited issue which arises for our consideration in this appeal is whether the High Court was justified and correct in law and on facts in exercising powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the order dated 24th July 2018 allowing the application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“the Code”) filed by Shailendra Garg, sole proprietor of M/s Garment Craft – the appellant before us.

3. In 2011, Prakash Chand Goel – the respondent before us, filed a civil suit on the original side of the Delhi High Court for the recovery of Rs.81,24,786.23p against the appellant.

4. The appellant contested the suit by filing written statement on various grounds, inter alia, claiming that the goods were not accepted or returned due to reasons mentioned in debit notes and in fact, the respondent owes Rs.88,785/- to the appellant.

5. After the admission and denial of documents and framing of issues, the suit was set for trial. The respondent as the plaintiff lead evidence which concluded on 1st May 2015 and the case was put up for the appellant’s evidence on 28th October 2015.

6. On 29th September 2015, Shailendra Garg, the sole proprietor of the appellant was arrested by the Rajasthan Police in an unrelated case, and thereafter on 6th October 2015, he was sent to judicial custody and detained in Central Jail, Jaipur. He was released on bail on 6th May 2017. It is the appellant’s case that due to the detention, the appellant was prevented from effectively contesting and participating in the civil suit. Consequently, since none appeared for the appellant, vide the order dated 28th October 2015, the Joint Registrar, Delhi High Court, directed closure of the defence evidence.

7. On raising the plea of pecuniary jurisdiction, the suit was transferred to the court of District Judge, Tis Hazari, Delhi.

8. On an application moved by the appellant, the Additional District Judge, vide order dated 14th March 2016, recalled the order directing closure of defence evidence and the appellant was granted opportunity to lead defence evidence subject to costs of Rs.5,000/-.

9. As Shailendra Garg was incarcerated, the Additional District Judge, (Central), Tis Hazari, Delhi, on the next date of hearing on 22nd April 2016 observed that the counsel for the appellant should have filed an application for issuance of production warrant to enable Shailendra Garg to appear before court. Cost of Rs.5,000/- was imposed and the case was adjourned for recording of the defence evidence on 31st May 2016.

10. Consequent to the order, the counsel for the appellant moved an application for issuance of production warrant for the appearance of Shailendra Garg. Accepting the application, vide order dated 11th May 2016, the Additional District Judge, (Central), Tis Hazari, Delhi, ordered for the issuance of production warrant for appearance of Shailendra Garg from Central Jail, Jaipur.

11. Constable Jitendra Kumar, thereupon, had appeared along with written communication from the Jail Superintendent, Jaipur, Rajasthan, seeking clarifications whether Shailendra Garg was on bail in that matter or not. The Additional District Judge, (Central), Tis Hazari, Delhi rejected the request for clarifications observing that Shailendra Garg should have been produced, but did not issue further directions as it was stated by the respondent that the suit was required to be re-transferred to the High Court in view of the Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Act, 2015. It was listed for arguments on 8th June 2016 on the said aspect.

12. After hearing arguments on 8th June 2016, the suit was directed to be transferred to the High Court, but vide order dated 10th August 2016 the suit was directed to be renumbered and listed before the Additional District Judge, (Central), Tis Hazari, Delhi.

13. On 22nd August 2016 the suit was listed before Additional District Judge, (Centr

Click Here to Read the rest of this document