Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Dinesh Kumar Sharma, J.
Usha Chauhan - Appellant
Versus
State of NCT - Respondent
C.R.P. 119 of 2022 & CM Appl. 36576 of 2022 (stay)
Decided On : 23-09-2022
Important Points
Subject
Civil Law - Revisional Jurisdiction
Headnote
(B) Revisional jurisdiction - Limited scope of review under Section 115 - Court cannot substitute its view for that of the Trial Court unless faced with jurisdictional excess or legal misstep. (Para 4)
JUDGMENT
Dinesh Kumar Sharma, J. (Oral)--Present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 05.07.2022, whereby, the application of the petitioner under Order 9 Rule 7, CPC as well as the application under Order 44 read with Section 114, CPC was dismissed with costs of Rs.5,000/-.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Trial Court has wrongly relied upon the forged rent agreement and has directed to make the payment of arrears of the rent @ Rs.11,000/- per month. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that whereas the rate of rent actually is Rs.3,200/- per month.
3. I have perused the order. Perusal of the impugned order dated 05.07.2022 indicates that an eviction petition was filed. In the eviction petition, the rent was stated at Rs.11,000/- per month on the basis of the Rent Agreement dated 11.07.2019. The impugned order also indicates that on 11.01.2021, on an application being moved under Section 15A, CPC in the presence of both the parties, the defendant/petitioner was directed to clear the arrears of rent @ Rs.11,000/- per month since February, 2020. However, thereafter, the petitioner stopped appearing before the Court. On an application being moved, the defence of the defendant/petitioner was struck off, vide order dated 11.01.2021. The defendant/petitioner was also proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 26.08.2021.
4. The exercise of revisional jurisdiction as conferred under Section 115, CPC is very limited. The High Court can interfere only if the learned Trial Court has exercised the jurisdiction not vested in it or has exceeded the jurisdiction. The order can also be set aside if it is patently illegal or suffers from any perversity.
5. Perusal of the present order indicates that the learned Trial Court has passed the order in accordance with law. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any specific illegality or perversity in the order of the learned Trial Court. The Court in its revisional jurisdiction cannot substitute its opinion with that of the learned Trial Court.
6. I do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order of the learned Trial Court.
7. Accordingly, the present petition along with pending application stands dismissed.
