Article 227 - Supervisory Jurisdiction Is Not To Correct Every Error When Final Finding Is Justified : Supreme Court

Supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not to correct a legal flaw when the final finding is justified or can be supported, the Supreme Court observed in a judgment delivered on Tuesday (11 Jan 2022).

The bench comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Bela M. Trivedi observed that the power under Article 227 is exercised sparingly in appropriate cases, like when there is no evidence at all to justify, or the finding is so perverse that no reasonable person can possibly come to such a conclusion that the court or tribunal has come to.

In this case, one Prakash Chand Goel filed a civil suit on the original side of the Delhi High Court for the recovery of Rs.81,24,786.23p against M/s Garment Craft. The plaintiff lead evidence which concluded on 1 st May 2015 and the case was put up for the defendant's evidence on 28th October 2015. On 29th September 2015, Shailendra Garg, the sole proprietor of the defendant was arrested by the Rajasthan Police in an unrelated case, and thereafter on 6th October 2015, he was sent to judicial custody and detained in Central Jail, Jaipur. Since none appeared for the defendant, vide the order dated 28th October 2015, the Joint Registrar, Delhi High Court, directed closure of the defence evidence. On raising the plea of pecuniary jurisdiction, the suit was transferred to the court of District Judge, Tis Hazari, Delhi. On an application moved by the appellant, the Additional District Judge, vide order dated 14th March 2016, recalled the order directing closure of defence evidence and the appellant was granted opportunity to lead defence evidence subject to costs of Rs.5,000/-. Accepting the application filed by counsel for defendant, vide order dated 11th May 2016, the Additional District Judge, (Central), Tis Hazari, Delhi, ordered for the issuance of production warrant for appearance of Shailendra Garg from Central Jail, Jaipur. Later, On 8th November 2016, an ex-parte judgment was passed, decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiff. Shailendra Garg was released on bail on 6th May 2017 and within 10 days of his release on 16th May 2017, he filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code for setting aside of the ex-parte decree. This application was allowed

Later, the Delhi High Court, exercising powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India had set aside an order allowing the application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908. The defendant therefore moved the Apex Court.

While allowing the appeal, the Apex Court bench observed thus:

Having heard the counsel for the parties, we are clearly of the view that the impugned order is contrary to law and cannot be sustained for several reasons, but primarily for deviation from the limited jurisdiction exercised by the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The High Court exercising supervisory jurisdiction does not act as a court of first appeal to reappreciate, reweigh the evidence or facts upon which the determination under challenge is based. Supervisory jurisdiction is not to correct every error of fact or even a legal flaw when the final finding is justified or can be supported. The High Court is not to substitute its own decision on facts and conclusion, for that of the inferior court or tribunal. The jurisdiction exercised is in the nature of correctional jurisdiction to set right grave dereliction of duty or flagrant abuse, violation of fundamental principles of law or justice. The power under Article 227 is exercised sparingly in appropriate cases, like when there is no evidence at all to justify, or the finding is so perverse that no reasonable person can possibly come to such a conclusion that the court or tribunal has come to. It is axiomatic that such discretionary relief must be exercised to ensure there is no miscarriage of justice.

The court said that, in the instant case, the discretion exercised by the trial court in granting relief, did not suffer from an error apparent on the face of the record or was not a finding so perverse that it was unsupported by evidence to justify it. Thus, the reasoned decision of the trial court on elaborate consideration of the relevant facts did not warrant interference in exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, the bench observed.

Click here to Read/Download Judgment