2022 Supreme(SC) 269

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Sanjiv Khanna, Bela M. Trivedi, JJ.
M/s Garment Craft – Appellant
Versus
Prakash Chand Goel – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 314 of 2022 (Arising Out of SLP (C) No. 13941 of 2021)
Decided On : 11-01-2022

IMPORTANT POINT
High Court exercising supervisory jurisdiction does not act as a court of first appeal to reappreciate, reweigh evidence or facts upon which determination under challenge is based.

Headnote:

(A) Constitution of India – Article 227 – Supervisory Jurisdiction – Scope and ambit – Supervisory jurisdiction is not to correct every error of fact or even a legal flaw when final finding is justified or can be supported – High Court exercising supervisory jurisdiction does not act as a court of first appeal to reappreciate, reweigh evidence or facts upon which determination under challenge is based – High Court is not to substitute its own decision on facts and conclusion, for that of inferior court or tribunal – Jurisdiction exercised is in nature of correctional jurisdiction to set right grave dereliction of duty or flagrant abuse, violation of fundamental principles of law or justice – Power under Article 227 is exercised sparingly in appropriate cases, like when there is no evidence at all to justify, or finding is so perverse that no reasonable person can possibly come to such a conclusion that court or tribunal has come to – Such discretionary relief must be exercised to ensure there is no miscarriage of justice.(Paras 12 and 20)

(B) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order IX Rule 13 – Constitution of India – Article 227 – Setting aside ex-parte decree – Recovery suit (Money suit) – It is appellant’s case that due to detention, appellant was prevented from effectively contesting and participating in civil suit – Counsel for appellant was aware that ex-parte decree had been passed on account of failure to lead defence evidence – This would not be a good ground and reason to set aside and substitute opinion formed by trial court that appellant being incarcerated was unable to lead evidence and another chance should be given to appellant to lead defence evidence – Discretion exercised by trial court in granting relief, did not suffer from an error apparent on face of record or was not a finding so perverse that it was unsupported by evidence to justify it – If it was felt that application for setting aside ex-parte decree was filed belatedly, court could have given opportunity to appellant to file an application for condonation of delay and costs could have been imposed – Reasoned decision of trial court on elaborate consideration of relevant facts did not warrant interference in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of Constitution – Order passed by Additional District Judge, allowing application under Order IX Rule 13 of CPC and setting aside ex-parte decree and judgment restored – Purpose and objective is to give an adequate and fair opportunity to party to establish their case – Appellant is a sole proprietor and in given facts, production warrant was issued for recording of his testimony, including examination-in-chief in court – In any case, he had to appear for cross-examination.(Paras 6, 19, 20 and 21)

Facts of the case:

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 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 filed by sole proprietor of appellant.

Findings of Court:

To protect the interest of the respondent, who has pleaded and argued that the appellant is trying to dissipate or transfer his assets, we deem it appropriate to direct the appellant to file details of all of his movable and immovable assets as in existence on the date of filing of the suit in an affidavit which will be filed within three weeks from the pronouncement of this order. The affidavit should also indicate his present assets and transfers including relinquishment etc. of the appellant’s movable and immovable properties/assets during the pendency of the suit. It will be open to the respondent to file an application under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of the Code before the trial court, which application if filed, will be dealt with in accordance with the law.

Result : Appeal allowed with directions.