High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh
Case Law Search
Manohar Lal v. Smt. Neelam & Ors - CR-2504-2006  RD-P&H 2597 (25 April 2006)
Civil Revision No.2504 of 2006
Date of decision:5.5.2006
Smt. Neelam and others
Present: Mr. Sandeep Arora, Advocate for the petitioner.
S.S. Saron, J.
This revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed against the order dated 10.3.2006 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Pathankot whereby the order proceeding ex parte against the defendants-respondents has been set aside.
The plaintiff-petitioner filed a suit seeking possession by way of specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 4.8.2002 in respect of land measuring 52 Kanals 19 Marlas as detailed in the head note of the plaint situated in the revenue estate of Village Kanwan,Tehsil Pathankot, District Gurdaspur or in the alternative for recovery of Rs.20 lacs i.e. Rs.10 lacs as earnest money and Rs.10 lacs as stipulated damages. The defendants- respondents were served for appearing in the Court. However, they did not appear on 18.11.2004. Resultantly, they were proceeded against ex parte.
The said order proceedings ex parte against the defendants-respondents has been set aside, which is assailed in the present petition.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that it is admitted case of the defendants-respondents that they had been served.
However, they have taken a vague stand in respect of their non-appearance on the date fixed which is evident from the application dated 10.8.2005 (Annexure-P.1) filed by the defendants for setting aside the ex parte CR No.2504/2006
I have given my thoughtful consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. A reading of the application dated 10.8.2005 (Annexure-P.1) shows that the defendants have accepted that they received the summons, however, they misplaced the same and lost track of the case. As such they failed to appear before the trial Court on 18.11.2004 with the result that they were proceeded ex parte. The learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) has considered this aspect and observed that although ex parte evidence has been recorded, but in case ex parte proceedings are set aside against the defendants, it would help in proper adjudication of the case.
Therefore, if the Court has found the presence of the defendants to be necessary for the proper adjudication of the case, in my view, no interference is called for in exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
The scope of jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution was considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ouseph Mathai and others v. M. Abdul Khadir, (2002) 1 SCC 319 wherein it was observed that mere wrong decision is not a ground for exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227. This Court may intervene only where it is established that the lower Court or tribunal has been guilty of grave dereliction of duty and flagrant abuse of power, which has resulted in grave injustice to any party.
Besides, petitioner cannot invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 as a matter of right and such a petition cannot be treated like an extension of a statutory appeal or revision.
Keeping in view the above observations and also the fact that the trial Court itself has found the presence of the defendants-respondents to be necessary for the adjudication of the case, it would be just and expedient to maintain the order.
Consequently, the revision petition is dismissed.
May 5, 2006. (S.S. Saron)
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.