Supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 allows correction of grave legal misapplications, but does not permit re-evaluation of established facts in summary suits if legal principles are adhered to.

JUDGEMENT

01. Supervisory jurisdiction of this Court enshrined under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is being invoked by the petitioners for seeking quashment of order dated 21.12.2022 (for short “impugned order”) passed by the Court of Additional District Judge (Bank Cases), Srinagar (for short “the trial Court”) in case titled as, “Shabir Ahmad Dar and Ors. vs. Commissioner-cum-Secretary and ors.”

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

02. The background facts emerging from the record of the petition would reveal that the contesting respondents herein filed a summary suit under Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) against the petitioners and the proforma respondent No. 7 herein for recovery of an amount of ₹ 57.23 lacs on the premise that the plaintiffs/respondent Nos. 1 to 6 being piece workers have been associated with the Estates Department for execution of civil, electric, sanitary and other related works, executed upon submission of quotations invited by the Estates Department upon approval of rates on annual basis to meet exigencies of work to be completed by the Estates Department for meeting demands of various Govt. departments and their officials in relation to providing of accommodation, furniture, fixtures etc. and that the said works including renovation and repairs on annual basis are stated were executed on emergency basis by the plaintiffs/respondents herein as per the requirement of the Engineering Wing of the Estates Department, whereafter upon completion of the said works, bills for payments came to be submitted after the recording of measurements as also test checks conducted by the supervisory staff of the Estates Department and that the said bills used to be forwarded to the Executive Engineer after their certification for approval and payment and that funds in this regard used to be requisitioned and consequently payments thereof made periodically by the Estates Department to the plaintiff/respondents herein, and that to the dismay and disappointment of the plaintiffs/respondents herein, the works executed by them in the Estates Department post abrogation of Article 370 of the Constitution came to be withheld by the defendants/petitioners herein, against the works executed by the plaintiffs/respondents herein, amounting to ₹ 40 lacs despite the fact that in order to make payments and in order to meet the liability, an amount of ₹ 37.52 lacs had been kept available by the Assembly Secretariat in the treasury and to be released by the Executive Engineer in favour of the plaintiffs/respondents herein, which however, could not be released on account of the emergent situation having cropped up on account of abrogation of Article 370 in the month of August, 2019 and conversion of MLA Hostel into a sub-jail for housing political detainees, which hostel upon the visit by the officials of the District Administration was ordered to be repaired on emergent basis resulting into consequent engagement of the plaintiffs/respondents herein by the defendant/petitioner No. 3 herein, whereupon the plaintiffs/respondents herein executed works to the tune of ₹ 18.35 lacs and raised bills after recording of certification by the engineering staff and that despite satisfactory completion of the works in question, the defendants/petitioners herein did not disburse payments in favour of the plaintiffs/respondents herein owing to the changes recorded in the codal formalities relating to the disbursement of the payments, which included execution of an agreement, and that on account of the failure of the defendants/petitioners herein to release the said payments in favour of the plaintiffs/respondents herein, a notice under section 80 CPC in the first instance came to be served upon the defendants/petitioners herein, as a pre-litigation proceedings, in response to which the defendants/petitioners herein replied and admitted the execution of work by the plaintiffs/respondents herein as also their entitlement thereof