Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Yadav Consultancy Services Pvt. Ltd. and its Managing Director, were defendants in Special Summary Suit No.18 of 2009 filed by M/s J.D. Gandhi Constructions for recovery of money. The suit was decreed. The petitioners did not prefer a substantial civil appeal. Their grievance was that the builder/respondent was bound to supply a copy of the sanctioned plan pertaining to the shop/office taken on lease by the petitioners, and that the trial court did not pay heed to this grievance, resulting in a money decree obtained by fraud. The petitioners had earlier filed Writ Petition No.3553 of 2015, in which they were given an opportunity to substantiate their grievances by way of an application in the summary suit. Thereafter, they prosecuted proceedings before the executing court, which were rejected by order dated 24 October 2017. The present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenged the executing court's order. The High Court held that it could not exercise its supervisory jurisdiction in favour of the petitioners because their grievances had already been considered and rejected by the executing court. The court noted that the petitioners had not preferred a substantial civil appeal against the decree. The writ petition was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Constitution of India - Article 227 - Supervisory Jurisdiction - Scope - The High Court declined to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 to interfere with a money decree passed in a summary suit, as the petitioners' grievances regarding non-production of a sanctioned plan had already been considered and rejected by the executing court. (Paras 4-5)
B) Civil Procedure - Summary Suit - Recovery of Money - Fraud - Allegation of fraud based on non-production of a sanctioned plan was not entertained as the petitioners had not preferred a substantial civil appeal and the executing court had already rejected their application. (Paras 3-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court should exercise its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to interfere with a money decree passed in a summary suit on the ground that the decree was obtained by fraud due to non-production of a sanctioned plan.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that it could not exercise its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 in favour of the petitioners as their grievances had already been considered and rejected by the executing court.
Law Points
- Article 227 of the Constitution of India
- supervisory jurisdiction
- fraud
- summary suit
- recovery of money
- executing court
- finality of decree
Case Details
2022 LawText (BOM) (01) 42
Writ Petition No.277 of 2018 with Civil Application 1038 of 2019
Mr. Prakash W. Yadav (Petitioner No.2 in person), Mr. Sudhir V. Sadavarte (for Respondent)
Yadav Consultancy Services Pvt. Ltd. and Another
M/s J.D. Gandhi Constructions
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging an order of the executing court rejecting the petitioners' grievances regarding non-production of a sanctioned plan in a summary suit for recovery of money.
Remedy Sought
The petitioners sought to challenge the money decree passed in Special Summary Suit No.18 of 2009 on the ground that it was obtained by fraud due to non-production of the sanctioned plan.
Filing Reason
The petitioners alleged that the builder/respondent did not produce the sanctioned plan for the shop/office taken on lease, and that the trial court did not consider their grievance, resulting in a fraudulent decree.
Previous Decisions
The petitioners had earlier filed Writ Petition No.3553 of 2015, in which they were given an opportunity to substantiate their grievances by way of an application in the summary suit. The executing court rejected their application by order dated 24 October 2017.
Issues
Whether the High Court should exercise its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 to interfere with a money decree passed in a summary suit on the ground of fraud based on non-production of a sanctioned plan.
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioners argued that the builder was bound to supply a copy of the sanctioned plan and that the decree was obtained by fraud.
The respondent argued that the petitioners' grievances had already been considered and rejected by the executing court.
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court's supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 cannot be exercised to interfere with a decree where the petitioners' grievances have already been considered and rejected by the executing court, and where no substantial civil appeal was preferred against the decree.
Judgment Excerpts
I am afraid that on this occasion, supervisory jurisdiction of this court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India can be exercised in favour of the Petitioners.
Their grievances were already considered and rejected by the executing court as per the order dated 24 October 2017.
Procedural History
The respondent filed Special Summary Suit No.18 of 2009 for recovery of money against the petitioners. The suit was decreed. The petitioners did not prefer a substantial civil appeal. They filed Writ Petition No.3553 of 2015, in which they were given an opportunity to substantiate their grievances by way of an application in the summary suit. The executing court rejected their application by order dated 24 October 2017. The petitioners then filed the present writ petition under Article 227 challenging that order.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Article 227
