Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
B. Harikishan Rao vs A. Venkatesham on 28 September, 2006
Equivalent citations: 2007(3)ALD37, 2007(2)ALT616, AIR 2007 (NOC) 149 (A. P.)
ORDER Gopala Krishna Tamada, J.
1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the order dated 23-6-2006 passed in I.A. No. 170 of 2006 in O.S.No. 25 of 2005 as well as the consequential orders dated 27-6-2006, viz., the docket order in I.A. No. 182 of 2006 and the judgment and decree in O.S.No. 25 of 2005, by the Senior Civil Judge, Kamareddy.
2. The brief facts that are required for disposal of this revision are as follows:- The respondent herein is the plaintiff and the petitioner herein is the defendant. The respondent instituted a suit in O.S. No. 25 of 2005 against the petitioner on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Ramareddy basing on a promissory note. It is stated that on 12-6-2006 after completion of the evidence of the plaintiff, the Court below adjourned the matter to 14-6-2006 for evidence of the defendant. On that day as the petitioner was not doing well, he sought an adjournment and also filed an application in I.A. No. 170 of 2006 under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (for short, 'the Act') requesting the Court to send the suit promissory note, Ex. A-1, to handwriting expert for comparison of the figures, difference of inks and age of ink in respect of numerical No. 1 and 20,000-00 and handwritings of names on the promissory note for the purpose of fair adjudication of the case. It is further stated that the Court below on 14-6-2006 while rejecting the request of the petitioner-defendant for adjournment, closed his evidence and posted the application in I.A. No. 170 of 2006 to 23-6-2006 for orders and that on 23-6-2006 the Court below while dismissing I.A. No. 170 of 2006 posted the suit to 27-6-2006 for judgment. In the meanwhile, on 26-6-2006, the petitioner filed two applications in I.A. Nos. 181 and 182 of 2006 under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, one to re-open the evidence on his side and the other to set aside the order dated 14-6-2006 passed in the suit, for fair adjudication of the case. The Court below on 27-6-2006 while dismissing the petitions in I.A. Nos. 181 and 182 of 2006 pronounced its judgment decreeing the suit in O.S. No. 25 of 2005. As already stated, as against the order dated 23-6-2006 passed in I.A. No. 170 of 2006 in O.S. No. 25 of 2005, as well as the consequential orders dated 27-6-2006, viz., the docket order in I.A. No. 182 of 2006 and the judgment and decree in O.S. No. 25 of 2005, the petitioner approached this Court invoking the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
3. Heard Sri P. Krishna Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri V. Tulasi Reddy, learned Counsel for the respondent and perused the impugned orders and other material on record.
4. According to Sri P. Krishna Reddy, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, the Court below has grossly erred in rejecting the petitioner's prayer for adjournment and consequently decreeing the suit. According to him, it is a case where there is absolutely no evidence on behalf of the petitioner and the same is due to the arbitrary closure of the evidence of the petitioner in haste, which resulted in miscarriage of justice. According to him, in such cases of manifest error, this Court can definitely exercise its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
5. On the contrary, Sri V. Tulasi Reddy, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent, opposed the said submissions and contended that since a statutory right of appeal is provided under Section 96 of CPC, the revision itself is wholly misconceived. He would further contend that the suit itself was decreed on 27-6-2006 and hence questioning the orders passed in I.A. No. 170 of 2006 does not arise as the said order culminates in the decree and judgment passed on 27-6-2006. He would also contend that when a statutory appeal, provided under Section 96 of CPC, is available to the petitioner, the petitioner should not have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
6. In the light of the said submissions, it is necessary to extract the prayer moulded by the petitioner in this revision, which reads thus:
...this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to set aside the order of the lower Court passed in I.A. No. 170 of 2006 in O.S. No. 25 of 2005 and consequently orders passed in I.A. No. 182 of 2006 in O.S. No. 25 of 2005 and the judgment and decree of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Kamareddy in O.S. No. 25of 2005 dated 27-6-2006 and allow the petition by directing the lower Court to send the suit pronote to a handwriting expert as prayed for in I.A. No. 170 of 2006 and dispose of the suit on merits by affording opportunity to the defendant to adduce his evidence after receipt of the handwriting expert's opinion and grant such other and further relief and reliefs to which the petitioner legally entitled to.
7. From a perusal of the above prayer, it is clear that the petitioner primarily challenges the order dated 23-6-2006 passed in I.A.No. 170 of 2006 in O.S.No. 25 of 2005. In addition to that, he has also made a consequential prayer to set aside the order passed in I.A. No. 182 of 2006 and the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No. 25 of 2005 dated 27-6-2006.
8. Apropos the above submissions made on either side, it is to be seen that the supervisory jurisdiction or the power of superintendence conferred upon the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India can be exercised in cases of erroneous assumption or excess of jurisdiction, refusal to exercise jurisdiction, error of law apparent on the face of the record, violation of the principles of natural justice, arbitrary or capricious exercise of authority, or discretion, arriving at a finding which is perverse or based on no material, a patent or flagrant error in procedure and orders resulting in manifest injustice.
9. Looking at the orders impugned and the prayer sought in this revision and keeping the above principles in mind, this Court is of the view that none of the above principles have been satisfied to invoke the said power of superintendence. No doubt, the power of superintendence conferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India vests a duty on this Court to keep the inferior Courts and tribunals within the bounds of their authority and to see that they do what their duty requires and that they do it in a legal manner. But the said power does not vest this Court with any unlimited prerogative to correct all species of hardship or wrong decisions made within the limits of the jurisdiction of the Court or tribunal, it must be restricted to cases of grave dereliction of duty and flagrant abuse of fundamental principles of law or justice, where grave injustice would be done unless this Court interferes.
10. The learned Counsel for the petitioner-defendant has drawn my attention to a judgment of this Court in Kota Sreevalli v. Chinni Seetharamaiah . It is a case wherein a single suit was instituted, basing on several promissory notes and the defendants therein raised several pleas and particularly when the execution of the suit documents is in dispute, the trial Court without examining any witness decreed the suit and thereupon the defendants instead of filing a regular appeal provided under Section 96 of CPC filed a revision before this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and the learned single Judge expressed his view that in the facts and circumstances of that case revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is maintainable. I am of the considered view that the learned single Judge in the facts and circumstances of that case held that the said decree was liable to be set aside because there was grave dereliction of duty and flagrant abuse of process of law. Similarly, the learned Counsel for the petitioner-defendant has also drawn my attention to the decisions in A.P.S.R.T.C. v. Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Officer and in Mallikarjuna Srinivasa Gupta v. K. Sheshirekha 2006 (4) ALT 162. The said decisions have no application to the facts of the case on hand. In the instant case, this Court is unable to appreciate that the Court below has committed a grave error in decreeing the suit.
11. As stated supra, when the evidence of the plaintiff was closed on 12-6-2006 and when the matter was posted to 14-6-2006 for evidence of the defendant, the defendant did not proceed with the evidence and thus the Court below closed his evidence. From this it cannot be said that there is absolutely no evidence. In fact, the plaintiff was examined as P.W.1 both in chief-examination as well in cross-examination and the suit document was marked as Ex. A-1. Further, the plaintiff has also filed the affidavits of P. Ws. 2 and 3 in lieu of chief-examination and as they were not available they could not be cross-examined. In deciding the suit, in fact, the learned Senior Civil Judge, taking into consideration the sole testimony of P.W.1 and Ex.A-1, and without taking into consideration the said evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3, decreed the suit. From the above it cannot be said that there is flagrant violation of any of the provisions of law or violation of gross abuse of the process of the Court. In fact, the Apex Court in Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai , held that in order to safeguard against a mere appellate or revisional jurisdiction being exercised in the garb of exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, the Courts have devised self-imposed rules of discipline on their power. Supervisory jurisdiction may be refused to be exercised when an alternative efficacious remedy by way of appeal or revision is available to the person aggrieved. In the instant case, as already noticed, an alternative and efficacious remedy by way of an appeal under Section 96 of CPC is very much available to the petitioner. Further, this Court is of the view that the comprehensive prayer to set aside the order dated 23-6-2006 passed in I.A. No. 170 of 2006 and consequentially to set aside the order dated 27-6-2006 passed in I.A. No. 182 of 2006 and the decree and judgment passed in O.S. No. 25 of 2005, is not correct. No doubt, the petitioner can invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India insofar as the order dated 23-6-2006 passed in I.A. No. 170 of 2006, but as against the judgment and decree in O.S. No. 25 of 2005, an alternative and efficacious remedy by way of an appeal under Section 96 of CPC is very much available.
12. In the light of the above discussion, this Court is of the view that this revision is misconceived and consequently, the same is liable to be dismissed. However, it is needless to observe that if the petitioner is so advised he may file an appeal and raise all the contentions advanced herein.
13. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs.