Delhi HC: Govt Created 'Utter Chaos' in OBC Reservation Rules Through Conflicting Notifications  ||  Calcutta HC: Acceptance of Rent After Quit Notice Doesn't Waive Tenancy Termination  ||  Delhi HC Flags EFI Selection Criteria Breach in Asian Games Dressage Team, Declines to Interfere  ||  Delhi High Court Safeguards Ravi Kishan's Personality Rights From Misuse  ||  Cal HC: Wife’s Ancestral Property Claim Can Amount to Dowry Demand if Made under Husband's Pressure  ||  Gujarat HC: Sessions Court Prima Facie Overreach Bail Jurisdiction by Ordering Executive Action  ||  Kerala HC: Re-Arrest is Allowed After an Illegal Arrest With Prior Judicial Approval  ||  Madras High Court: Section 15(2) Safeguards Need Not Apply to Searches in Commercial Spas  ||  Supreme Court: Proof of Attestation Alone Doesn't Establish Will's Genuineness  ||  Delhi HC: Education Department Cannot Restrict Recruitment in Aided Minority Schools    

63 Moons Technologies Limited vs.Precewaterhouse Coopers Private Limited - (High Court of Bombay) (25 Aug 2023)

While exercising the jurisdiction under Article 277 of Constitution, High Court cannot review or reassess the evidence

MANU/MH/3381/2023

Civil

The challenge in present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 is to the order passed by the City Civil Court refusing to grant leave under Order 2, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('CPC') to institute suit for damages. The Petitioner is the original plaintiff who filed Suit, claiming relief of declaration and injunction.

The plaintiff needed to supply a reason why the plaintiff could not have sought relief of damages on the date of the institution of the suit. Only after such reason is furnished would the Court be required to consider the justifiability of such application and whether such reason is sufficient to grant leave under Order 2, Rule 2 of CPC. The application seeking leave does not contain any reason why the plaintiff is seeking leave to reserve the right to file the suit for damages.

It is well settled that, the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is confined only to see whether inferior Court or Tribunal has proceeded within the parameters of its jurisdiction. In exercising jurisdiction under Article 277 of the Constitution of India, the High Court does not act as a Trial Court or Tribunal and, therefore, cannot review or reassess the evidence upon which the inferior Court or Tribunal passed the order assailed before it.

The reason for not pleading before the Trial Court while exercising discretion cannot be substituted before this Court in a petition under Article 227, as the petition is against the decision- making process of the Trial Court. However, the reasons assigned in the order are not satisfactory. However, in the absence of reasons in the application seeking leave, this Court cannot grant relief. Therefore, no case of interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is made out. Petition dismissed.

Tags : REVIEW   LEAVE   GRANT  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved