Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.10 seconds)The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Section 115 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Shalini Shyam Shetty & Anr vs Rajendra Shankar Patil on 23 July, 2010
7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Shalini Shyam
Shetty and another Vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil", reported as (2010) 8
Supreme Court Cases 329, had observed that the High Courts cannot, at
the drop of a hat, in exercise of its power of superintendence under
Article 227 of the Constitution, interfere with the orders of tribunals or
courts inferior to it. Nor can it, in exercise of this power, act as a court of
appeal over the orders of court or tribunal subordinate to it. It was also
observed in the said judgment that a statutory amendment with respect to
Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code does not and cannot cut down
the ambit of High Court's power under Article 227 but at the same time, it
must be remembered that such statutory amendment does not
correspondingly expand the High Court's jurisdiction of superintendence
under Article 227. The power of interference under this Article is to be
kept to the minimum to ensure that the wheel of justice does not come to
a halt and the fountain of justice remains pure and unpolluted in order to
maintain public confidence in the functioning of the tribunals and courts
subordinate to the High Court. It was also observed that the power under
Article 227 may be unfettered but its exercise is subject to high degree of
judicial discipline.
Sandeep Kumar vs Satpal on 13 December, 2017
5. The trial Court vide the impugned order had observed that
during the winter spell also, urgent work was being entertained by the
Duty Judge and that even in case the winter spell was not taken into
consideration, then also, there was no satisfactory
explanation/justification for the petitioner to have not appeared through
counsel from 02.01.2023 to 05.01.2023. It was further observed that in
case the delay in appearance is condoned on the averments made in the
application dated 06.01.2023 (Annexure P-3), in which it had been stated
2 of 5
::: Downloaded on - 03-05-2025 06:49:25 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:053782
CR-2488-2025 -3-
that it was on account of inadvertence that the summons had been
misplaced, then the whole purpose of the mandatory provision regarding
summary suits would stand frustrated. Reliance was placed upon a
judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in case titled as
"Sandeep Kumar Vs. Satpal", passed in Civil Revision No.2796 of 2016,
decided on 13.12.2017.
1