Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
C.HARI SHANKAR
Sushma Chopra – Appellant
Versus
Neelu Bisaria – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of the case. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 2. petitioner's arguments regarding trial court's order. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 3. court's reasoning and observations on article 227 jurisdiction. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25) |
| 4. final order granting opportunity to the petitioner. (Para 26 , 27 , 28) |
1. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenges an order dated 29th November, 2021 passed by the learned Additional District Judge ("the learned ADJ", hereinafter). A brief recapitulation of the proceedings as they transpired before the trial court is necessary.
2. Vide order dated 14th March, 2014, this Court - which was in seisin of the proceedings prior to their being transferred to the trial court vide order dated 5th March, 2016, consequent to enhancement of pecuniary jurisdiction of the trial court - noted that the defendant in the suit had set up an oral family settlement dated 26th January, 2003 which was subsequently reduced to a written memorandum of family settlement dated 27th September, 2009 and, therefore, that the defendant should adduce evidence in t
Jurisdiction under Article 227 is supervisory; courts may not correct mere errors unless there's a grave dereliction of duty or substantial injustice.
Unconscionable laches can bar relief in petitions under Article 227; courts will not interfere unless there are grave abuses or derelictions.
A party seeking to amend pleadings post-trial must prove due diligence; mere claims of counsel negligence do not satisfy this requirement.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the scope of Article 227 does not warrant interference with the impugned order, and that the Original Side Rules do not apply to the case.
The judgment emphasizes the limited scope of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and the restricted nature of the High Court's interference in the decisions of inf....
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.
The recall of a witness under Order XVIII Rule 17 should be for clarifying doubts and not to fill up any lacuna or omission in the evidence already recorded.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
