9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Special leave petition against judgment and order of Delhi High Court, application under s. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, application under O.XXI, r. 89, substitution of petitioner's name, setting aside the sale, fraud allegations by decree-holder, application under O.XXI, r. 2, invocation of inherent powers of the Court, appeal to District Judge, revision before High Court, jurisdiction of High Court under Art. 227 of the Constitution.
The judgment deals with a special leave petition challenging the Delhi High Court's decision. The property of the surety was sold in execution of a decree, and various applications were made regarding the sale. The petitioner, a stranger to the estate, sought substitution as an heir based on an alleged will. The Subordinate Judge's orders regarding the applications were challenged, leading to the High Court's consideration. The High Court declined to interfere, citing reasons of res judicata and limitation. The Supreme Court emphasized the limitations of Art. 227 jurisdiction, highlighting that mere wrong decisions are not sufficient for intervention. The Court dismissed the special leave petition, affirming the High Court's decision and emphasizing the need for proper legal remedies such as appeal or revision. The judgment underscores the importance of following established legal procedures and the limited scope of supervisory jurisdiction under Art. 227 of the Constitution.
|
