9911796707
TMI Blog1984 (5) TMI 265X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the Addl. Sessions Judge, New Delhi was passed in revision petition brought by respondent no. I Sudershan Kumar Modi feeling aggrieved from the order dated 8-9-1981 of the learned A.C.M.M., New Delhi framing the charge against him under the aforesaid provisions of law. (2) Mr. Watel representing respondent No. 1 has assailed the maintainability of the petition under S. 482 of the Code on the ground that the petitioner had the right to file a revision against the impugned order of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, in the High Court but the petitioner did not file any revision for which limitation expired before 12-1-1984 as a result of which the impugned order has become final and conclusive and cannot be set aside by the High Court in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion (at page 964) which reads as follows :- THIS question having been settled authoritatively it is not open to the petitioners to invoke the inherent powers of this Court having failed to avail of their right of appeal or revision. Inherent powers of the Court preserved in S. 482 of the Code and as held in a catena of cases are to be exercised, namely, (1) for giving effect to any order passed under the Code, or (2) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or (3) otherwise to secure the ends of justice. It was also observed in that authority that while exercising powers it has to be borne in mind that this power cannot be exercised in regard to matters specifically covered by the other provisions of the Code and also that S. 4 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . (4) The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended on the basis of Raj Kapoor and others v. State (Delhi Administration) and others that the label of the petition filed by an aggrieved party is immaterial and that the High Court can examine the matter in an appropriate case under its inherent powers. If we take up this petition under S. 482 of the Code as a revision petition, the same would be obviously barred by time as already pointed out above and this shall not help the petitioner in any manner. No compelling circumstance has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner in this case so as to entitle the Court to exercise its inherent powers under S. 482 of the Code even though there was the revisional remedy ava ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ief to the respondent casting to the winds the well-settled principle that the High Court does not ordinarly, in exercise of its discretion, entertain a special civil application under Art. 227 of the Constitution where an adequate alternative legal remedy is available to the applicant. It is true that this principle is not rigid and inflexible and there can be extraordinary circumstances where despite the existence of an alternative legal remedy, the High Court may interfere in favor of an applicant, but this was certainly not one of such extraordinary cases. It is indeed difficult to see how the learned Judge could entertain a Special Civil Application against a decree passed by a subordinate court when the procedural law allows an appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
