Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Bipin Chander Negi, J
Tikkam Dutt – Appellant
Versus
Dharma Nand – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Bipin Chander Negi, J.
1. The present petition has been filed seeking following substantive reliefs:-
“1. To quash and set aside impugned orders dated 28.03.2022 (Annexure P-1) passed in the Execution Petition No.2/2014 for all intent and purposes.
2. To execute the judgment and decree passed in Civil Suit No.1-1 of 2006 titled as Tikam Dutt versus Dharma Nand in letter and spirit.”
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the pleadings and documents appended along-with present petition.
3. The present petitioner had filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction and mandatory injunction with respect to the suit land. The suit so filed was decreed on 13.10.2006. The aforesaid decree had been passed ex-parte.
4. In terms of the decree passed, the present respondent had been permanently retrained from causing any obstructions, interference in the light and air of the present petitioner. Besides the aforesaid, a decree for mandatory injunction was passed to the effect that the construction raised by the respondent over the suit land be demolished.
5. In order to set aside the ex-parte order, an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Code had been
The execution of a decree is barred by limitation if not filed within the prescribed period, and the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 227 does not permit re-evaluation of evidence or legal err....
The High Court's supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is limited to ensuring inferior courts act within their parameters, not correcting errors of law or fact.
Grant of injunction – Wherever proceedings are under CPC and forum is Civil Court, availability of a remedy under CPC, will deter High Court from exercising its Power of Superintendence.
The High Court's jurisdiction under Article 227 is limited to ensuring inferior courts act within their authority, not to correct errors of law or fact.
The High Court's supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is limited to ensuring inferior courts act within their parameters, not to correct every legal error or re-weigh evidence.
The High Court under Article 227 does not reconsider factual errors of inferior courts unless findings are perverse or unjust, maintaining supervisory authority without delving into case merits.
(1) Striking out pleadings and rejection of plaint – Once specific provision under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, is available, High Court cannot exercise powers under Article 227 to reject or strike off ....
The judgment emphasizes the limitations and conditions for exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
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
