1.Raghubir Sharan 2.Raghaw Sharan 1.Mirawati Kuer 2.Sat Narayan Dubey 3.Binod Kumar Dubey 4.Tara Devi v. …
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C.M.P No. 962 of 2022 ---- 1.Raghubir Sharan 2.Raghaw Sharan 1.Mirawati Kuer 2.Sat Narayan Dubey 3.Binod Kumar Dubey 4.Tara Devi 5.Lalita Devi 6.Rima Devi 7.Shambhu Dubey 8.Ram Sewak Dubey 9.Rameswari Kuer 10.Pramila Kuer 11.Shyamakant Dubey 12.Mina Devi 13.Sima Devi 14.Rajeshwar Dubey 15.Sita Ram Dubey 16.Rajendra Dubey 17.Kailash Dubey 18.Janak Dubey … … Petitioners Versus … … Respondents ------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD ------ For the Petitioner For the Respondents : . : Mr. Farauque Ansari, Advocate Order No. 05: Dated 19th April, 2024 -------- 1. The instant petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 24.08.2022 passed by learned Civil Judge, Junior Division-I, Palamau at Daltonganj in Original Suit No. 153 of 2012, whereby and whereunder the petition dated 24.03.2021 filed
Facts
by the petitioner [plaintiffs to the suit] for recall of order by which evidence has been closed and the case has been fixed for evidence of defendants has been rejected. - 1 - 2. The petitioner, in order to impress upon the learned trial Court has taken the ground of Covid-19. The said ground has been discarded by the learned trial Court on the ground that the issues has been settled on 24.06.2014 and the evidence of the plaintiff has been closed on 19.11.2019 and no evidence has been adduced by the plaintiffs between that period, thus the sufficient time and several opportunities have been given to the plaintiffs to adduce the evidence but plaintiffs failed to adduce any evidence. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that ground of the recall of the order by which the plaintiffs’ evidence was closed has not been taken into consideration even though the ground of Covid-19 has been taken due to that compelling situation and reason beyond the control of petitioner, the relevant documents could not have been filed and in the meanwhile the evidence of the plaintiffs was closed. 4. This Court has confronted with the learned counsel for the petitioners as to on which date the effect of Covid-19 making interruption in the court proceeding has been imposed but he is not in a position to answer the same. 5. It requires to refer herein that due to Covid -19 and taking into consideration the decision of the respective governments i.e., the State and Central Government, the - 2 - lockdown was imposed by virtue of order issued in this regard on 25th March, 2020. 6. It needs to refer herein the order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No.3 of 2020, wherein, the Hon’ble Apex Court while considering the Covid- 19 pandemic has passed general order to waive out the period from 15.03.2020 to 14.03.2021 said to be not considered for the purpose of counting the period of limitation, the relevant paragraphs of the said judgment are being referred as under:- “1.Due to the onset of COVID-19 pandemic, this Court took suo motu cognizance of the situation arising from difficulties that might be faced by the litigants across the country in filing petitions/applications/suits/appeals/all other proceedings within the period of limitation prescribed under the general law of limitation or under any special laws (both Central or State). By an order dated 23.03.2020 this Court extended the period of limitation prescribed under the general law or special laws whether compoundable or not with effect from 15.03.2020 till further orders. The order dated 23.03.2020 was extended from time to time. Though, we have not seen the end of the pandemic, there is considerable improvement. The lockdown has been lifted and the country is returning to normalcy. Almost all the Courts and Tribunals are functioning either physically or by virtual
Legal Reasoning
mode. We are of the opinion that the order dated 23.03.2020 has served its purpose and in view of the changing scenario relating to the pandemic, the extension of limitation should come to an end. 2. We have considered the suggestions of the learned Attorney General for India regarding the future course of action. We deem it appropriate to issue the following directions: - 1. In computing the period of limitation for any suit, appeal, - 3 - application or proceeding, the period from 15.03.2020 till 14.03.2021 shall stand excluded. Consequently, the balance period of limitation remaining as on 15.03.2020, if any, shall become available with effect from 15.03.2021. 2. In cases where the limitation would have expired during the period between 15.03.2020 till 14.03.2021, notwithstanding the actual balance period of limitation remaining, all persons shall have a limitation period of 90 days from 15.03.2021. In the event the actual balance period of limitation remaining, with effect from 15.03.2021, is greater than 90 days, that longer period shall apply. 3. The period from 15.03.2020 till 14.03.2021 shall also stand excluded in computing the periods prescribed under Sections 23 (4) and 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and provisos (b) and (c) of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and any other laws, which prescribe period(s) of limitation for instituting proceedings, outer limits (within which the court or tribunal can condone delay) and termination of proceedings. 4. The Government of India shall amend the guidelines for containment zones, to state. “Regulated movement will be allowed for medical emergencies, provision of essential goods and services, and other necessary functions, such as, time bound applications, including for legal purposes, and educational and job-related requirements.” 7. It is, thus, evident that the imposition so made and the period made due to the effect of Covid-19 the period which has been waived for the purpose of limitation issue has begun from 15.03.2020. 8. But here the evidence of the plaintiffs has been closed on 19.11.2019, which is much prior to the imposition of lockdown due to Covid-19. Hence, the aforesaid ground - 4 - cannot be said to be justified ground to recall order dated 19.11.2019. 9. The leaned trial Court has considered the issue and after taking into consideration that the petition for recall the said application was filed on 24.03.2021, which is also a belated application even in that application the plaintiffs have not disclosed that what evidence are relevant to be adduced while the suit is of the year 2012. The said reason led the learned trial Court to reject the petition dated 24.03.2021, legality and propriety of the said order is under challenge before this Court. 10. This Court is exercising the power conferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, which is the revisionary jurisdiction and as per the settled position of law, the manifest error is required to be shown by the party concerned against whom the order has been passed by the learned trial Court. A 'manifest error' is one that is “obvious or easily demonstrable without extensive investigation”. 11. It is the settled position of law that the jurisdiction of the court exercising the revisionary jurisdiction, as conferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is very least and the same can only be exercised if there is manifest error or the jurisdictional error, reference in this regard may be made to the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme - 5 - Court in the case of Shalini Shyam Shetty Vrs. Rajendra Shankar Patii, reported in (2010) 8 SCC 329 wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down the scope of Article 227 which relates to the supervisory powers of the High Courts and by taking aid of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Full Bench of Calcutta High Court in the case of Dalmia Jain Airways Ltd. Vrs. Sukumar Mukherjee, reported in AIR 1951 Calcutta 193, wherein, it has been laid down that Article 227 of the Constitution of India does not vest the High Court with limit less power which may be exercised at the court’s discretion to remove the hardship of particular decisions. The power of superintendence confers power of a known and well recognized character and should be exercised on those judicial principles which give it its character. In general words, the High Court’s power of superintendence is a power to keep the subordinate courts within the bounds of the authority, to see that they do what their duty requires and that they do it in a legal manner. i. The power of superintendence is not to be exercised unless there has been; (a) An unwarranted assumption of jurisdiction, not vested in a court or tribunal; or (b) gross abuse of jurisdiction; or (c) an unjustifiable refusal to exercise jurisdiction vested in courts or tribunals. - 6 - ii. Further, in the aforesaid judgment the Hon’ble Apex Court has taken aid of a judgment rendered in the case of Mani Nariman Daruwala Vrs. Phiroz N. Bhatena, reported in (1991) 3 SCC 141, wherein it has been laid down that in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227, the High Court can set aside or reverse finding of an inferior court or tribunal only in a case where there is no evidence or where no reasonable person could possibly have come to the conclusion which the court or tribunal has come to. iii. The Hon’ble Apex Court has made it clear that except to this limited extent the High court has no jurisdiction to interfere with the finding of facts. iv. Further, the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Laxmikant Revchand Bhojwani Vrs. Pratapsing Mohansingh Pardeshi, reported in (1995) 6 SCC 576 it has been laid down that the High Court under Article 227 cannot assume unlimited prerogative to correct all species of hardship or wrong decisions. Its exercise must be restricted to grave dereliction of duty and flagrant abuse of fundamental principles of law and justice. v. It has been laid down at paragraph 47 of the aforesaid judgment that the jurisdiction under Article 227 is not original nor is it appellable. This jurisdiction of superintendence under Article 227 is for both administrative and judicial superintendence. Therefore, the powers conferred under Article 226 and 227 are separate and - 7 - distinct and operate in different fields. Another distinction between these two jurisdictions is that under Article 226 the High Court normal annuls or quashes an order or proceedings but in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227, the High Court, apart from annulling the proceeding, can also substitute the impugned order by the order which the inferior tribunal should have made. vi. It has further been laid down regarding the powers to be exercised by the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The High Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction of superintendence, can interfere in order only to keep the tribunals and courts subordinate to it within the bounds of its authority, in order to ensure that law is followed by such tribunals and courts by exercising jurisdiction which is vested with them and by not declining to exercise the jurisdiction which is vested in them. Apart from that, High Court can interfere in exercise of its power of superintendence when there has been a patent perversity in the orders of the tribunals and courts subordinate to it or where there has been a gross and manifest failure of justice or the basic principles of natural justice have been flouted. Vii In exercise of its power of superintendence High Court cannot interfere to correct mere errors of law or fact or just because another view than the one taken by the tribunals or courts subordinate to it, is a possible view. In other words the jurisdiction has to be very sparingly exercised. - 8 - 12. This Court, after taking into consideration the aforesaid ratio and after coming back to the impugned order, is of the view, for the reasons referred hereinabove, that the petitioners have failed to show any error apparent on the face of order, hence, it is not a case where power conferred to this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India under its revisionary jurisdiction is fit to be exercised. 13. Accordingly, the instant petition lacks merit and is dismissed. (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) Alankar/- N.A.F.R. - 9 -