2022 (7) TMI 1331 - SC - Indian Laws

Seeking to set aside the ex-parte judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court - in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the High Court has set aside the ex-parte judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court - HELD THAT - It can be seen that as such the High Court has not at all considered whether the learned Trial Court was justified in refusing to condone such a huge delay of 2345 days. The High Court has also not appreciated and considered the fact that as such the order passed by the learned Trial Court refusing to condone the delay of 1522 days in so far as original defendant No. 1 had attained the finality. Original defendant No. 1 straightway challenged the ex-parte judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court by way of revision application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Whether the revision application before the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India can be said to be maintainable or not has not at all been considered. Even otherwise the remedy against an ex-parte judgment and decree available to the defendants was either to file an application under Order IX Rule 13 of CPC or to prefer an appeal before the First Appellate Court. The defendants availed the first remedy by way of filing the applications under Order IX Rule 13 of CPC. However there was a huge delay of 1522 and 2345 days which was not condoned by the learned Trial Court. Even otherwise against the ex-parte judgment and decree the remedy by way of an appeal before the First Appellate Court was available. Therefore the High Court ought not to have entertained the revision application under Section 115 of CPC and under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The High Court ought not to have entertained such a revision application challenging the ex-parte judgment and decree. Once there was a statutory alternative remedy by way of an appeal available to the defendants the High Court ought not to have entertained a writ petition or revision application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India - the High Court has committed a grave error in entertaining the revision petition under Article 227 challenging the ex-parte judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court and in quashing and setting aside the same in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The High Court has exceeded in its jurisdiction while setting aside the ex-parte judgment and decree in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constriction of India - the impugned common judgment and order passed by the High Court in Civil Revision Petition is hereby quashed and set aside - appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the ex-parte judgment and decree in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
2. Whether the High Court correctly addressed the refusal to condone the delay of 1522 and 2345 days in filing the petition to set aside the ex-parte judgment and decree.
3. Whether the revision petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India were maintainable when a statutory appeal was available.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Justification of High Court's Exercise of Powers under Article 227
The Supreme Court noted that the High Court set aside the ex-parte judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court without addressing the legality and validity of the Trial Court's refusal to condone the delay. It was emphasized that the High Court acted beyond its jurisdiction by entertaining the revision petitions under Article 227 when a specific remedy of appeal was available under the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). The Supreme Court highlighted that the High Court should not have entertained the revision petitions under Article 227, especially when the defendants had an alternative appellate remedy. The Supreme Court cited the decision in *Virudhunagar Hindu Nadargal Dharma Paribalana Sabai and Ors. Vs. Tuticorin Educational Society and Ors.* to support its stance that the High Court should refrain from exercising its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 when a statutory appeal is available.

Issue 2: Refusal to Condon Delay
The Supreme Court observed that the High Court did not consider whether the Trial Court was justified in refusing to condone the delays of 1522 and 2345 days. The High Court failed to discuss the detailed order of the Trial Court, which had refused to condone the delay due to the lack of sufficient cause shown by the defendants. The Supreme Court asserted that the High Court should have addressed whether the Trial Court's refusal to condone the delay was justified before setting aside the ex-parte judgment and decree. The Supreme Court found that the High Court's order was unsustainable as it did not consider the relevant aspects and exceeded its jurisdiction.

Issue 3: Maintainability of Revision Petitions under Article 227
The Supreme Court reiterated that when a statutory appeal is available, the High Court should not entertain a revision petition under Article 227. The defendants had the remedy to file an appeal against the ex-parte judgment and decree, which they did not pursue. Instead, they filed revision petitions under Article 227, which the High Court entertained. The Supreme Court emphasized that the availability of an appellate remedy under the CPC should deter the High Court from exercising its power under Article 227. The Supreme Court cited the decision in *Radhey Shyam and Anr. Vs. Chhabi Nath and Ors.* to underline that orders of civil courts stand on a different footing from orders of tribunals or quasi-judicial authorities, and the High Court should exercise restraint in such matters.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the High Court's judgment and restoring the ex-parte judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court had committed a grave error by entertaining the revision petitions under Article 227 and setting aside the ex-parte judgment and decree without addressing the justification of the Trial Court's refusal to condone the delay. The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of adhering to the statutory remedies provided under the CPC and the limitations of the High Court's supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227.