Alok Aradhe ORDER
Alok Aradhe, J.
1. Heard on the question of admission.
2. In this petition filed under section 104 of constitution of Jammu and Kashmir read with Article 227 of constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the validity of the order dated 23.2.2016 passed by the trial court by which the trial court has granted leave to the defendants to defend the suit filed by the petitioner under Order 37 of Civil Procedure Code.
3. Facts giving rise to the filing of this writ petition briefly stated are that the petitioner filed a suit under the provisions of Order 37 of the Civil Procedure Code for recovery of amount of Rs. 5.30 lakh against the respondents. The claim under the suit was based on a cheque dated 10.11.2013 as well as a promissory note dated 20.08.2013 issued allegedly by the respondents. The respondents filed application seeking to defend the suit. The aforesaid prayer was opposed by the petitioner. The trial court vide impugned order has allowed the application and granted leave to the defendants to defend the suit.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the trial court grossly erred in granting the relief to the respondents. It is further submitted that the respondents had filed a criminal complaint before the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate Srinagar. On perusal, the court has taken cognizance of offences under section 323, 341, 506 and 352 RPC. It is further submitted that the trial court has failed to take note of the aforesaid aspect of the matter.
5. I have considered the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, and have perused the record. The Supreme Court in the case of Shalini Shyam Shetty v. Rajendra Shankar Patil while dealing with the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Courts has held that the High Court in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction would not entertain an order passed by the trial court even if the order is illegal. The court will exercise supervisory jurisdiction only in a case where the order has been passed in flagrant violation of principles of natural justice or if the same is allowed the same will result in miscarriage of justice. In the instant case the trial court has granted leave to the defendants to defend the case and has held as under:
"The defence raised by the defendants/applicants that the plaintiff/non-applicant with the help of police officer namely Habibullah came at his residence and took them at some unknown place where kept them confined and got their signatures on DP note under compulsion stand prima facie substantiated by the copy of the complaint which appears to have been instituted prior to the institution of the suit i.e. on 10.07.2014. It is evident from the copy of the plaint that the defendants have instituted a complaint against the plaintiff and another person alleging the aforesaid facts. The plea raised by the defendants appears to be reasonable. It is only the plaintiff who could explain it when confronted so in the cross examination. The case raises a triable issue. Therefore, keeping in view the aforesaid prepositions of law and the facts of the case, the defendants have made out a case for leave to defend the suit. Accordingly, the application is allowed and the defendants are granted leave to defend the suit. Defendants are directed to submit the written statement of their defence on the next date of hearing."
6. The order passed by the trial court neither suffers from legal infirmity nor is there any error on the face of the record. In case the order is allowed to stand it will not cause an irreparable prejudice to the petitioner. Therefore, no case for invoking the supervisory jurisdiction of this court is made out. I do not find any merit in the petition.
7. Dismissed.
© Manupatra Information Solutions Pvt. Ltd.