Tulip Kanth

New Delhi, June 8, 2022: Explicating the law relating to Article 227 of the Constitution, the Delhi High Court has opined that in exercise of Article 227 jurisdiction, the court is proscribed from going into the correctness of the orders passed by the court below. Even if the order under challenge is erroneous, that cannot by itself justify interference under Article 227, where no case for correction is made out.

The Bench of Justice C.Hari Shankar was considering a petition, preferred under Article 227 assailing the impugned order passed by the Additional Rent Controller (ARC) whereby the ARC closed the opportunity of the petitioner, who was the respondent in the said eviction petition, to file written statement.The impugned order noted  the fact that on December 10, 2019, one month’s time was granted to the respondent to file written statement and no written statement had been filed till 24th September, 2020.

Keeping the aforesaid aspects in view, the Bench was of the opinion that the order was clearly within the jurisdiction of the ARC and the ARC waited for as many as seven months before closing the petitioner’s right to file written statement. Also, the Bench refuted the submission of the petitioner relating to the oft-cited plea of the COVID-19 pandemic by saying that the time available with the petitioner to file the written statement expired much before the COVID-19 pandemic was visible on the horizon.

Referring to certain judgments with respect to the exercise of powers under Article 227, the Bench affirmed, “Article 227 of the Constitution of India confers supervisory jurisdiction on the court. Discretionary orders passed by the trial court, which are passed within its jurisdiction and do not suffer from any perversity or illegality cannot be interfered with under Article 227; else, this Court would be ignoring the long line of precedents regarding Article 227, which include, Sadhana Lodh v. National Insurance Co. Ltd , Estralla Rubber v. Dass Estate (P) Ltd. , Garment Craft v. Prakash Chand Goel , Puri Investments v. Young Friends & Co. and the recent judgment in Ibrat Faizan v. Omaxe Buildhome Pvt. Ltd.

The Bench clarified that  the parameters of Article 227 jurisdiction are extremely constricted. Thus, subject to the limited caveat, the Bench found no reason to interfere with the impugned order and dismissed the petition.

0 CommentsClose Comments

Leave a comment