High Court’s Supervisory Jurisdiction Over Orders Passed Under Order 39 Rules 1&2 Restricted, Can Be Exercised In Case Of Palpable Error
Case: Anil Kumar Seth V. Lalit Kumar Seth And Anr
Coram: Justice C Hari Shankar
Case No.: CM(M) 330/2022
Court Observation: “If, therefore, the courts below are functioning in a manner which calls for correction in the exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction vested in the court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the court would interfere; else, the court would hold its hands,”
“If, however, in granting, or rejecting an application preferred under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC, a court acts arbitrarily or illegally, or in irregular exercise of the jurisdiction vested in it, the hierarchically superior court may interfere,”
“Even more restricted, therefore, would be the scope of interference by the High Court, in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, with an order passed by the court below under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2. It is only where the court below has exercised its jurisdiction in a palpably erroneous manner, as would call for correction by the High Court, as a supervisory court, that the High Court would act under Article 227,”
“In the present case, the scope of interference is even more constricted, as the impugned order does not either grant or refuse the injunction sought by the petitioner under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2. It merely issues summons in the suit and notice on the application for interim injunction. To my mind, an order of the court below, which issues notice on an application filed by a party before it, without taking a decision either to grant or refuse the prayer contained in the application prior to issuance of notice, would ordinarily be immune from interference by the High Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227,”
“Possibly, the High Court, even in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227, may interfere in such a case. For a case for interference to be made out, however, the standard to be set is extremely high. It would have to be shown that the court below was duty bound, in law, to pass the order sought by the petitioner before the High Court, in its application, even without notice to the opposite party and that, in issuing notice to the opposite party without passing ex-parte orders, the court below acted in patently illegal or perverse, exercise of the jurisdiction vested in it. The standard, to reiterate, is extremely high.”
“No jurisdictional error, or other illegality, as would justify interference by this Court, in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, can be said to exist,”
Previous Posts
Penetrative Sexual Act Between The Thighs Of Victim Held Together Is Rape As Defined U/S 375 IPC: Kerala High Court Download Judgement
TPO To Mandatorily Pass Order Determining Arm’s Length Pricing Within 60 Days: Madras High Court
Keywords
Order 39 Rules 1&2, Supervisory Jurisdiction
