Article 227 Should Not Be Wielded Mechanically, Interference Must Be Restricted To Cases With Grave Legal Violations: J&K High Court

Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal observed that powers under the article should be reserved for instances where there is an absence of evidence to justify a finding, where a finding is so perverse that no reasonable person could arrive at the same conclusion, or where there is a grave illegality or flagrant violation of a fundamental principle of law, necessitating judicial interference.

These observations came in a petition under Article 227 which was filed by the petitioner, challenging orders passed by the lower courts in a civil dispute involving property rights.

The petitioner had argued that the orders of the lower courts were not based on any substantial evidence and were therefore perverse. The petitioner asserted that these orders ignored crucial evidence and legal principles, leading to erroneous conclusions.

Additionally, the petitioner highlighted the respondents' non-compliance with procedural requirements, particularly the mandatory notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC).

The respondents maintained that the lower courts had correctly assessed the evidence and had delivered judgments in accordance with the law. The respondents also contended that the petitioner's failure to comply with Section 80 CPC was a significant procedural lapse that undermined the entire case.

Court's Observations:

Reiterating that the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is not to be used as a substitute for an appeal but rather as a corrective measure to ensure justice in cases where lower courts have exceeded their jurisdiction or have committed a grave miscarriage of justice Justice Nargal stressed that this power should be exercised only when there is a patent perversity or a serious legal infirmity.

The High Court underscored that it would not interfere with the factual findings of the lower courts unless they were entirely unsupported by evidence or were so perverse that no reasonable person could have arrived at such a conclusion. In doing so, the Court referred to the judgment in Waryam Singh v. Amarnath, reinforcing the principle that Article 227 jurisdiction is to be invoked sparingly and only in exceptional cases.

A significant point of discussion was the petitioner's alleged failure to comply with Section 80 CPC, which mandates a two-month notice to be served to the government or public officer before instituting a suit. The Court emphasized the mandatory nature of this provision, citing Bihari Chowdhary v. State of Bihar, where non-compliance with Section 80 CPC was deemed fatal to the suit.

In the instant case Justice Nargal found that the petitioner's non-compliance with this statutory requirement and observed,

“… the petitioner has neither issued any prior notice under Section 80(1) of the CPC nor any leave has been sought from the Court under Section 80(2) of the CPC. Thus, the petitioner without adopting the due procedure, as envisaged under law has proceeded to file the suit and subsequently, an interim relief was also granted by the trial Court… Thus the finding recorded by the appellate court with respect to the maintainability of the suit for non compliance of Section 80 of CPC cannot be faulted”

Justice Nargal referred to the Supreme Court's ruling in Radhey Shyam v. Chhabi Nath to illustrate that the High Court's role under Article 227 is not to act as an appellate body but to ensure that justice is administered according to law. The Court reiterated that Article 227 is not intended to correct mere errors of fact but to address grave legal errors and ensure adherence to judicial norms.

Pointing out the petitioner's approach in bypassing mandatory legal procedures and directly invoking Article 227 reflected an inappropriate use of the High Court's supervisory powers the Court expressed that the petitioner seemed to be attempting to circumvent established legal processes, which is not the purpose of Article 227.

In light of these findings the court stated that there was no justification for exercising the extraordinary powers under Article 227 and hence dismissed the petition.

Case Title: Kailash Nath Vs Mukul Raj

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 244

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment