AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
H. S. Thangkhiew, J
This petition under Article 227 impugns the order dated 30.12.2018 passed in Misc. Case No. 13/2017, arising out of Money Suit Case No. 01 (T) of 2013, whereby an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, for condonation of delay in filing a Review Petition was rejected.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the condonation application was rejected only on the ground that the petitioner had not supplied a copy of the Review Petition to the Court or to the opposite party, which he contends was incorrect as the Review Petition was already on record before the Learned Trial Court. It is submitted that the Trial Court had on a mere technical ground rejected the condonation application which was for a delay of 51 days, which had been explained in the application itself.
He therefore submits that, the rejection of the condonation application on the ground of non-supply of the Review Petition is erroneous and bad in law and facts, and as such, the impugned order is liable to be set aside by this Court.
Mr. S. Sahay, learned counsel on behalf of the respondent Corporation has raised strong objections on the maintainability of the instant Petition under Article 227 and submits that no grounds have been made out by the petitioner to warrant the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction by this Court. It is submitted that the Trial Court did not lack any jurisdiction to pass the impugned order and that the grievance of the petitioner, is only against the merits of the order. He further submits that any interference by this Court, will have the effect of the application under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC, read with Section 56 of the Electricity Act, 2003, which had been rejected and sought to be reviewed, being re-opened, when no circumstances or grounds exist for review. As such, it is submitted that the Revision Application being devoid of merit, be dismissed.
From the submissions and materials on records, it can be seen that the only issue in the instant matter concerns the dismissal of the condonation application by the Trial Court on the ground that a copy of the Review Petition was not supplied to the Court or the opposite party. The reasoning can be seen, is based on the finding that in the condonation application at Para – 4 it had been stated as follows:
“4. ……… that the petitioner craves the leave of the Hon’ble court to refer to rely on the statements made by it in the review application at the time of hearing of this application and the same may be treated to be a part and parcel of this application.”
However, it is noted that the petitioner has categorically stated that the Review Application was already on record, and had been registered as Misc. Case No. 12/2017, and that the opposite party was well aware of the same. Taking this fact into consideration, though the Trial Court did not lack jurisdiction in passing the impugned order, the impugned order, apart from adopting a hyper technical approach, is also not based on the records available before the Trial Court, which therefore calls for limited interference.
Though, it has been advanced by the learned counsel for the respondent Corporation that there is no patent lack of jurisdiction to warrant the exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, it is also true that this exercise of power is not limited only to this aspect, but involves the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction over all courts and tribunals throughout its territory.
Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the condonation application is directed to be re-heard afresh on merits. It is however, emphasized that such hearing will be confined only to the delay aspect and not on the merits of the Review Petition.
As it has been submitted that the suit has not proceeded though there were no interim orders in operation, the Trial Court is directed to dispose of the application for condonation of delay as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of 1(one) month from the date of presentation of this order before the said Court.
For the aforesaid reasons, this Revision Petition stands allowed and is accordingly disposed of.
No order as to costs.