SC: Insurer Must Pay Accident Compensation Despite Route Permit Violation, Recoverable From Owner  ||  SC: Recovery of Currency Alone Doesn’t Convict under PC Act Without Proof of Demand and Acceptance  ||  SC: Minor Variations in Later Statements Don’t Undermine First Dying Declaration if Reliable  ||  SC: Members of Unlawful Assembly Liable under Section 149 IPC Once Common Object is Proven  ||  Madras HC: Grandparents Can Execute Adoption Deed for Unmarried Daughter if She Consents  ||  Delhi HC: Guilty Plea Doesn’t Bypass Double Jeopardy; Second Conviction for Same Offence Invalid  ||  Del HC: Provision of Recall u/s 311 CrPC Ensures Justice, Not Multiple Chances to Negligent Litigant  ||  AP HC: Shutdown of Specific Unit Constitutes Closure, Workers Entitled to Compensation under S.25FFF  ||  P&H High Court: Over-Implication of Accused’s Relatives Turns Criminal Process Into Harassment  ||  Delhi HC: Denying Candidature of Physically Disabled Person Due to 'No Vacancy' Violates RPwD Act    

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