Mistake Of Fact Or Law Not Ground To Entertain Article 227 Petition Unless There Is Manifest Miscarriage Of Justice: Jammu & Kashmir High Court

Justice Puneet Gupta stressed that orders cannot be set aside without substantial grounds, and even errors of fact or law may not warrant interference unless they result in a clear miscarriage of justice.

The case revolved around the possession of a high-end vehicle. The respondent (original plaintiff) contended that a substantial amount of Rs. 22 lakhs was paid to petitioner (original defendant No.2), who is also a partner of defendant No.1, for the vehicle's ownership. However, the plaintiff failed to get the vehicle transferred in their name and subsequently filed a suit seeking its transfer and a restraint on the Petitioner/defendants from interfering with its possession.

The petitioner, instead of filing a written statement, submitted an application to vacate interim directions issued by the trial court, however, the court made these interim directions of status quo absolute. Aggrieved of the same the petitioner filed an appeal against the trial court's decision, but the appeal was dismissed by Additional District Judge, Srinagar which also directed the petitioner to surrender the vehicle to the plaintiff. Dissatisfied with the outcome, the petitioner approached the High Court via Article 227, seeking to set aside both the trial court and the appellate court's decisions.

Assailing the order the petitioner contended that the payment for the vehicle was made to defendant No.2 and not to the petitioner, who was the registered owner. The respondent/Plaintiff, on the other hand, emphasized their possession of the vehicle since the filing of the suit and argued that the petition is not maintainable as the findings of the two courts cannot be challenged in the present petition more so when the disputed questions of fact are raised and that there is no prima facie illegality in the orders of both the courts below which may amount to miscarriage of justice

The court concurred that Article 227 of the Constitution cannot be moved only for the reason that the orders passed by the trial court and the appellate court are not to the liking of a party against whom the orders have been passed.

Addressing the petitioner's claim as the registered owner, the court highlighted that ownership alone cannot be the sole determinant in civil proceedings as the court must weigh various factors presented during the course of the trial to arrive at an informed decision.

“The petitioner being registered owner of the vehicle cannot be the only criteria to hold that the petitioner is to be held entitled to the vehicle. In civil proceedings, the court has to take into consideration various factors which are brought on record to come to a tentative finding while deciding the interim application”, Justice Gupta underscored.

In view of the said stand the court dismissed the petition, affirming that the impugned orders were not evidently flawed to necessitate rectification. However, to ensure fairness, the court directed the plaintiff not to dispose of the vehicle during the trial and to submit an undertaking regarding compensating the defendants for any depreciation that might occur during the litigation process.

Case Title: Surjeet Singh Vs Sheikh Behzad Khalid & others

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (JKL) 226

Counsel For Petitioner: Mr. Danish Majid Dar, Advocate with Ms. Ahra Syed, Advocate.

Counsel For Respondent: Mr. M.A.Makhdoomi, Advocate with Mr. Abdul Manan, Advocate.

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment