Mooljit Singh and Others vs Additional District Judge (IX) and Others

Ravi S. Dhavan, J.—The petitioners are the judgment debtors. The decree holders brought an action before the trial court, in effect, complaining that the decree of the Court in their favour was violated by the defendants. The trial court passed a consequential order that the decree be observed or else the judgment debtors will be detained in custody till the decree of the Court is honoured.

Aggrieved the judgment debtors preferred a civil appeal before the I Xth Additional District Judge, Bulandshahr, which was registered as Civil Appeal No. 14 of 1986: Rajpal Singh v. Raghubir Singh. The lower appellate court scrutinised the entire material on record threadbare, perused the evidence of the parties on record and the pleadings, of both the decree holders and the judgment debtors. Consequently, in a detailed order it affirmed the judgment of the trial-court that the decree had indeed been violated and the consequence for violation of the decree must follow. The order of the trial court was affirmed.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner has been beared at great length and has taken the court through the entire evidence on record and desires that the evidence must be seen again as the courts below have come to a wrong conclusion, as indeed in so far as the judgment debtors are concerned, that decree has not been violated.

Notwithstanding that the matter has been argued in detail, the court put a proposition to the learned Counsel for the petitioner that there may be constraints in the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to rehash the entire evidence and facts on record, and come to another conclusion. Ibere might be a possibility of two conclusions. The courts below have come to one conclusion. It may not be appropriate for this Court to arrive at another conclusion when it was satisfied that all aspects, the pleadings and the evidence have been scrutinised by the trial court and the lower appellate court. The Supreme Court has laid this principle recently in a judgment reported in Chandavarkar Sita Ratna Rao Vs. Ashalata S. Guram, . The relevant passages from the judgment of the Supreme Court are reproduced below:

In case of finding of facts, the Court should not interfere in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Reference may be made to the observations of this Court in AIR 1975 1297 (SC) wheie this Court observed that the High Court could not in the guise of exercising its jurisdiction under Article 227 convert itself into a Court of Appeal when the legislature has not conferred a right of appeal "

It is true that in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution the High Court could go into the question of facts or look into the evidence if Justice so requires it if there is any misdirection in law or a view of fact taken in the teeth of preponderance of evidence. But the High Court should, decline to exercise its juridiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution to look into the fact in the absence of clear and cut down reasons where thequestion depends upon the appreciation of evidence. The High Court also should not interfere with a finding within the jurisdiction of the inferior tribunal except where the findings were perverse and not based on any material evidence or it resulted in manifest injustice-See Trimbak Gangadhar Telang and Another Vs. Ramchandra Ganesh Bhide and Others, . Except to the limited extent indicated above, the High Court has no jurisdiction. In our opinion, therefore, in the facts and circumstances of this case on the question that the High Court has sought to interfere, it is manifest that the High Court has gone into questions which depended upon appreciation of evidence and indeed the very fact that the learned trial Judge came to one conclusion and the appellate bench came to another conclusion is indication of the position that two views were possible in this case. In preferring one view to another of factual appreciation of evidence, the High Court transgressed its limits of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. On the first point, therefore, the High Court was in error.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner cited a decision of the Supreme Court Bhagat Ram Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others, and referred to paragraph 10 particularly. This case is not applicable as the Supreme Court has set on record that a finding may be interfered with, where it is utterly perverse. This Court after examining the judgments of the trial court and the appellate court is of the opinion that there is no perversity in the two judgments impugned so as to occasion interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

The petition is, thus dismissed.