Supreme Court Awards Rs. 6 Lakh to Man Acquitted After 6 Years, Faults UP Police Probe  ||  Supreme Court: High Courts Can Restore Power on 50% Deposit in Arbitrary Theft Assessments  ||  Supreme Court: Cooperative Society Cannot Deny RTI Records as Personal if Registrar Can Access Them  ||  SC: CoC Cannot Withdraw Approved Resolution Plan Over Improved Corporate Debtor Finances  ||  Delhi High Court: 24-Week Limit Alone Cannot Restrict Medical Termination of Pregnancy  ||  Allahabad High Court Rejects Challenge to 18% GST on Online Legal Database Services  ||  Madras High Court: FIR Registration Does Not Decide Guilt; Prior Hearing of Accused Not Required  ||  Kerala High Court Orders Speedy Prosecution Sanction Process in Sabarimala Gold Theft Case  ||  Allahabad HC: Missing RT-PCR Report Cannot Bar COVID-19 Compensation if Records Confirm Infection  ||  MP High Court Directs Indore Police to Deploy Volunteers for Reporting Noise Pollution Violations    

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 2026 - All Rights Reserved