1997 (11) TMI 531 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
1. Appealability of an order of a learned Single Judge under sec. 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1960 before a Division bench of the High Court.

Analysis:
The Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether an appeal would lie before a Division bench of the High Court against an order of a learned Single Judge rendered under sec. 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1960. The learned Single Judge had decreed the suit in terms thereof. The respondents contended that the appeal was not maintainable as sub-sec. (3) of sec. 6 of the Act bars any appeal or revision against orders passed under sec. 6. The Division Bench's decision was found to be correct in this regard. However, the appellant argued that the appeal was maintainable under clause 15 of the Letters Patent, which governs the functioning of the High Court of Bombay. The Court noted that statutory provisions cannot override the constitutional power of a High Court unless expressly excluded. Since sec. 6(3) of the Act did not expressly exclude appeals under the Letters Patent, the appeal was found to be maintainable under clause 15, as the order was passed by a learned Single Judge exercising original jurisdiction.

The Court emphasized that the constitutional power of a High Court, as outlined in the Letters Patent, would not be excluded unless expressly stated in the statutory enactment. In this case, sec. 6(3) of the Specific Relief Act did not contain any such exclusion. Therefore, the appeal was deemed maintainable under clause 15 of the Letters Patent, which applied to the Bombay High Court. The Court clarified that invoking clause 15 made the order appealable, and the appeal was allowed solely on this ground.

The Supreme Court set aside the judgment and order of the High Court in the appeal and restored the appeal to the High Court for further proceedings in accordance with the law. The Court directed the High Court to expedite the decision on the appeal. The appeal was allowed with no costs, and it was explicitly stated that the Court expressed no opinion on the merits of the dispute between the parties.