MOHAMED ALI versus V. JAYA & ORS.

MOHAMED ALI versus V. JAYA & ORS.

The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in entertaining revision petitions under Article 227 and Section 115 CPC to set aside an ex-parte judgment and decree where a statutory appeal under the CPC was available, and further failed to consider whether the trial court was justified in refusing to condone the delays (1522 and 2345 days); accordingly the High Court's judgment dated 19.11.2021 was quashed and set aside and the trial court's ex-parte judgment and the orders refusing condonation (insofar as relating to original defendants 2 to 4) were restored.

Parties
Original Plaintiff / Appellant: Mohamed Ali; Original Defendants / Respondents: V. Jaya & Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
11 July 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal to Supreme Court From High Court Judgment Dated 19.11.2021 in Civil Revision Petitions Under Article 227
Outcome
Appeal allowed; impugned High Court judgment and order quashed and set aside; trial court ex-parte judgment and specified orders restored
Legal Topics
Article 227 Superintendence, Section 115 CPC, Order IX Rule 13 CPC, Order XII CPC, Condonation of Delay, Ex Parte Judgment and Decree, Readiness and Willingness in Specific Performance
Constitutional Law Civil Procedure Contract / Specific Performance Supervisory Jurisdiction Article 227 Superintendence Section 115 CPC Order IX Rule 13 CPC Order XII CPC +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mohamed Ali

Original Plaintiff / Appellant

V. Jaya & Ors.

Original Defendants / Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal to Supreme Court From High Court Judgment Dated 19.11.2021 in Civil Revision Petitions Under Article 227

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court erred in entertaining revision under Article 227 and Section 115 CPC to set aside an ex-parte decree where a statutory appeal under the CPC was available
  2. 2 Whether the High Court failed to consider and justify the trial court's refusal to condone the delays of 1522 and 2345 days before setting aside the ex-parte judgment and decree
  3. 3 Whether the High Court exceeded its supervisory jurisdiction by effectively exercising appellate review of the merits without first addressing maintainability and condonation issues

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in entertaining revision petitions under Article 227 and Section 115 CPC to set aside an ex-parte judgment and decree where a statutory appeal under the CPC was available, and further failed to consider whether the trial court was justified in refusing to condone the delays (1522 and 2345 days); accordingly the High Court's judgment dated 19.11.2021 was quashed and set aside and the trial court's ex-parte judgment and the orders refusing condonation (insofar as relating to original defendants 2 to 4) were restored.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; impugned High Court judgment and order quashed and set aside; trial court ex-parte judgment and specified orders restored

Orders

  • Impugned common judgment and order dated 19.11.2021 passed by the High Court in Civil Revision Petition (NPD) No. 1054/2021 and Civil Revision Petition (PD) No. 1301/2021 is quashed and set aside
  • Ex-parte judgment and decree passed by the trial court is restored