Summary
The appellant company filed a suit against the respondents in the court of the Senior Subordinate Judge, Gurgaon, for the specific performance of an agreement for the purchase of' certain land by the company from the respondents. Part of the land in question became the subject of proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and dispute relating to compensation was referred to the Court of the District Judge. The court fixed the compensation at over Rs.
2 Iakhs. A dispute as to apportionment of the compensation was also. referred under s.' 30 of the Land Acquisition Act to the court but the proceedings were stayed by the Additional District Judge, pending decision of the suit for specific performance by the Senior Subordinate Judge. The suit was dismissed and thereupon the respondents applied to the Additional District Judge for continuation of proceedings under s. 30 and for payment of compensation to them. The appellant company resisted the application on the ground that it had filed an appeal in the High Court against the decree of the Senior Subordinate Judge. The Additional District Judge after hearing both parties stayed the proceedings under s. 30 pending disposal of the company's appeal by the High Court. On a revision application under s. 115 C.P.C. filed by the respondents, the High Court ordered on March 18, 1969 that a sum of not more than Rs. 1,78,000 out of the compensation for the acquired land be paid to the respondents who must undertake not to sell the rest of the land during the pendency of the appeal. The Additional District Judge after hearing the parties judicially interpreted the order to. mean that Rs.1,78.000 were to be paid to the respondents after the conclusion of the proceedings under' s. 30. The respondents again moved the High Court with an application under s.151/141 C.P.C. for a clarification of its earlier order whereupon by order dated May 8, 1969 the High Court ordered immediate payment. The company challenged the High Court's orders dated March 18, 1969 and May 8, 1969 in an appeal before this Court. It was contended on its behalf that in making its first order the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction u/s 115 C.P.C. and in making the clarificatory order ex-parte it violated the rules of natural justice.HELD: (i) The position is firmly established that while exercising its jurisdiction under s. 115, it is not competent to the High Court to correct errors of fact however gross or even errors of law unless the errors have relation to the jurisdiction of the Court to try the dispute itself. Clauses (a) and (b) o.f this section on their plain reading quite clearly did not cover the present case because it had not been shown that the learned Additional Sessions Judge had either exercised a jurisdiction not vested in him by law or had failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested in him in recording the order that the proceedings under reference be stayed till the decision of the appeal by the High Court in the proceedings for specific performance of the agreement in question. Clause (c) of the section also did not apply 369to the present case. The words "illegally" and "with material irregularity" as used in this clause do not cover either errors of fact or of law; they do not refer to the decision arrived at but merely to the manner in which it is reached. The errors contemplated by this clause may relate either to breach of some provision of law of to material defects of procedure. affecting the ultimate decision, and not to errors of either fact or of law, after the prescribed procedure has been complied with. [375 D--G]The High Court had not adverted to the limitation imposed on its power under s. 115 of the Code and had treated the revision as if it was an appeal. Merely because the High Court would have felt inclined, had it dealt with the matter initially, to come to a different conclusion on the question of continuing stay of the reference proceedings pending decision of the appeal could hardly justify interference on revision under s. 115 of the Code when there was no illegality or material irregularity committed by the Additional Sessions Judge in his manner of dealing with the question. The order of the High Court dated March 18, 1964 had therefore to be set aside. [375 F-H]Rajah Amir Hassan Khan v. Sheo Baksh Singh, I I Indian Appeals 237: Balakrishna Udayar v. Vasudeva Aiyar, 44 Indian Appeals 261; Keshav Deo v. Radha Kissan. [1953] S.C.R. 136 applied.(ii) The ex-parte order dated May 8 1969 was equally difficult to sustain. The High Court had proceeded to make an order virtually and in effect reversing the judicial order made by the learned Additional Judge in favour of the appellant. This could, more appropriately be done only on appeal or revision after notice to the party affected and not on an application under ss. 151/141 C.P.C. Such an application in the. circumstances was misconceifed. [376 C,F]See the full content of this document
Extract
D.L.F.Housing & Construction Company Private Ltd., Ne VS. Sarup Singh And Others
PETITIONER: D.L.F. HOUSING & CONSTRUCTION COMPANY PRIVATE LTD., NEW Vs.RESPONDENT: SARUP SINGH AND OTHERSDATE OF JUDGMENT: 12/09/1969BENCH: DUA, I.D.BENCH: DUA, I.D.VAIDYIALINGAM, C.A.CITATION: 1971 AIR 2324 1970 SCR (2) 368 1969 SCC (3) 807ACT: Code of Civil Procedure (Act, 5 of 1908) ss. 115, 151 and 141-Jurisdiction of the High Court under.JUDGMENT: CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1575 of 1969.Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated March 18, 1969 and May 8, 1969 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Civil Revision No. 1014 of 1968 and C.M. No. 1863 of 1969.S.V. Gupte and Ravinder Narain, for the appellant.K.R. Chaudhuri, for the respondents.The Judgment of the C...
See the full content of this document