Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Bipin Chander Negi, J
Madan Lal – Appellant
Versus
Shammi Sahni – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Bipin Chander Negi, J.
The present petition has been preferred against the impugned order dated 15.07.2024, passed by the Rent Controller-I, Solan, District Solan, in Rent Petition No.6 of 2018, titled Shammi Sahni vs. Punni Devi, whereby application filed by the present petitioner under Order 14 Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 for framing additional issues, has been dismissed.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the petition and the documents appended along with the present petition.
3. The present respondent No.1 had filed a rent petition under Section 14 of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act , 1987 for eviction of the petitioner and proforma respondents. The said petition was registered as 6/2018. The same had been filed on the ground of bonafide requirement. In the same, it had been alleged that the non-residential shop in question had been rented to the predecessors-in-interest of the present petitioner, i.e., one Shri Umeda Ram. Since Umeda Ram had died, therefore, all his legal heirs, i.e. petitioner and prforma respondents had been impleaded as party respondents in the aforesaid rent petition.
4. In response to the aforesaid rent pet
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's supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution is limited to ensuring compliance with legal parameters and does not extend to correcting errors of law or fact.
The jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 is limited to ensuring no grave dereliction of duty occurs, not re-evaluating evidence or substituting the lower court's conclusions.
The supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 is limited to reviewing whether lower courts acted within their jurisdiction and does not extend to correcting errors of law.
The High Court under Article 227 does not review evidence as appellate courts do and only intervenes if lower courts commit serious legal errors.
Failure to take timely steps in legal proceedings may result in the dismissal of subsequent applications, and the court may find no prejudice in listing multiple matters for hearing on the same date.
The court's decision emphasized that hearing the application for framing additional issues and the main appeal on the same date would not prejudice the petitioner.
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 limited scope of supervisory jurisdiction under article 227 of the Constitution and the need for evidence to justify interference with the findings of the lower court or tribunal.
Interference would be justified only in the event the view taken by the Rent Controller and the Tribunal is entirely arbitrary and perverse or in excess of jurisdiction.
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
