Constitutional Court Not Constrained By Procedural Law Unless There Is Specific Prohibition: Punjab & Haryana High Court
Punjab and Haryana High Court, while dealing with an application for review of a judgment wherein revision petition filed by the plaintiff in an agreement to sell matter was dismissed, held that the Court has sufficient powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as well as Section 151 of CPC to prevent the ends of justice from being defeated.The court was hearing a case where...
Punjab and Haryana High Court, while dealing with an application for review of a judgment wherein revision petition filed by the plaintiff in an agreement to sell matter was dismissed, held that the Court has sufficient powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as well as Section 151 of CPC to prevent the ends of justice from being defeated.
The court was hearing a case where the parties suffered a statement before the Lok Adalat and agreed to pray for passing a consent decree. Unfortunately, due to lack of proper advice, the aforesaid decree was not passed.
Question is as to whether the Court is helpless in such a situation? In my humble opinion, the Court has sufficient powers not only under Section 115 of the CPC but also under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as well as under Section 151 of CPC which gives inherent powers to the Court to prevent the ends of justice from being defeated.
The bench comprising Justice Anil Kshetarpal further added that the revision petition was heard at length and the Court has passed a detailed judgment after considering each and every aspect of the case. Therefore, the applicant's argument that he did not have notice of the method adopted by the Court is negated.
Brief facts of the case are that during the pendency of the suit for specific performance, the matter was listed before the Lok Adalat where the agreement to sell was executed. Due to lawyer's lack of diligence, the suit was dismissed. The plaintiff filed execution petition which was dismissed.
Thereafter, revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution was filed whereby order passed by the Lok Adalat was set aside and the matter was remitted to the said Court for passing an appropriate order in view of terms and conditions of settlement.
In present review petition, the applicant submitted that the Court has approbated and reprobated in the same order. He submits that on the one hand, the Court treated the revision petition to be filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, whereas, on the other hand, the Court issued directions while exercising powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Findings
The High Court observed that it is required to devise methods to ensure substantive justice between the parties in peculiar facts of each case. A Constitutional Court would not be constrained by procedural law unless there is specific prohibition neither will it be constraint by hyper-technicalities.
The Court is required to devise methods to ensure substantive justice between the parties in the peculiar facts of each case. It is not expected that a Constitutional Court would be constrained by procedural law unless there is specific prohibition. In order to do substantive justice, it is expected that the Court will rise above the hyper-technicalities in order to deliver justice in the real sense.
Court further added that Article 227 of the Constitution of India gives enough powers to the High Court to superintend over the working of the Courts and the Tribunals and under Section 151 of CPC the High Court is invested with the powers to prevent the ends of justice from being defeated.
Therefore, in the light of above observations the court held that the High Court has wide powers to pass appropriate directions in the facts and circumstances of the case in order to deliver justice.
Consequently, no ground to review the judgment dated 23.12.2020, is made out.
Case Title : Robin Gupta v. MS Stratford Educational Management Pvt Ltd And Others
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 141