NCLAT: Can’t Dismiss Restoration App. if Filed in 30 Days from Date of Dismissal of Original App.  ||  Delhi HC: Communication between Parties through Whatsapp Constitute Valid Agreement  ||  Delhi HC Seeks Response from Govt. Over Penalties on Petrol Pumps Supplying Fuel to Old Vehicles  ||  Centre Notifies "Unified Waqf Management, Empowerment, Efficiency and Development Rules, 2025"  ||  Del. HC: Can’t Reject TM Owner’s Claim Merely because Defendant Could have Sought Removal of Mark  ||  Bombay HC: Cannot Treat Sole Director of OPC, Parallelly with Separate Legal Entity  ||  Delhi HC: Can Apply 'Family of Marks' Concept to Injunct Specific Marks  ||  HP HC: Can’t Set Aside Ex-Parte Decree for Mere Irregularity  ||  Cal. HC: Order by HC Bench Not Conferred With Determination by Roster is Void  ||  Calcutta HC: Purchase Order Including Arbitration Agreement to Prevail Over Tax Invoice Lacking it    

Fayaz Ahmad Najar Vs. Feroz Ahmad Najar and Ors. - (High Court of Jammu and Kashmir) (26 Mar 2018)

Supervisory jurisdiction would be exercised only in a case where order has been passed in flagrant violation of principles of natural justice or if same will result in miscarriage of justice

MANU/JK/0234/2018

Civil

In instant petition filed under Section 104 of Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir read with Article 227 of Constitution of India, the Petitioner has assailed the validity of the order passed by the trial court by which the trial court has granted leave to the Defendants to defend the suit filed by the Petitioner under Order 37 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC).

The Petitioner filed a suit under the provisions of Order 37 of the CPC for recovery of amount of Rs. 5.30 lakh against the Respondents. The claim under the suit was based on a cheque dated 10th November, 2013 as well as a promissory note dated 20th August, 2013 issued allegedly by the Respondents. The Respondents filed application seeking to defend the suit. The aforesaid prayer was opposed by the Petitioner. The trial court vide impugned order has allowed the application and granted leave to the Defendants to defend the suit.

The Supreme Court in the case of Shalini Shyam Shetty v. Rajendra Shankar Patil while dealing with the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Courts has held that, the High Court in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction would not entertain an order passed by the trial court even if the order is illegal. The court will exercise supervisory jurisdiction only in a case where the order has been passed in flagrant violation of principles of natural justice or if the same is allowed the same will result in miscarriage of justice.

The order passed by the trial court neither suffers from legal infirmity nor is there any error on the face of the record. In case the order is allowed to stand it will not cause an irreparable prejudice to the petitioner. Therefore, no case for invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this court is made out. The High Court dismissed the petition.

Tags : AMOUNT   RECOVERY   SUPERVISORY JURISDICTION   INVOKING OF  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2025 - All Rights Reserved