Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, who were the plaintiffs in a suit for permanent injunction, filed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the judgment and decree dated 30/12/2020 passed by the District Judge, South Goa, in Regular Civil Appeal No. 56/2014. The trial court had decreed the suit in their favor, but the lower appellate court reversed the decree and dismissed the suit. The petitioners contended that the appellate court had erred in reappreciating the evidence and that its findings were perverse. The respondents supported the appellate judgment. The High Court examined the scope of its jurisdiction under Article 227 and noted that it is limited to correcting errors of jurisdiction and not to reappreciate evidence like a regular appellate court. The court found that the lower appellate court had considered the evidence on record, including the documentary evidence and the testimony of witnesses, and had recorded findings that were plausible and not perverse. The High Court held that there was no jurisdictional error or perversity in the impugned judgment and dismissed the writ petition with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Permanent Injunction - Concurrent Findings - Scope of Article 227 - The petitioners sought to challenge the judgment of the District Judge reversing the trial court's decree of permanent injunction - The High Court held that the writ court cannot act as an appellate court and reappreciate evidence unless the findings are perverse or based on no evidence - Held that the lower appellate court's findings were based on proper appreciation of evidence and did not suffer from any jurisdictional error (Paras 1-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court in its writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India can interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the lower appellate court when the trial court had decreed the suit but the appellate court reversed it.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that there was no jurisdictional error or perversity in the impugned judgment of the lower appellate court. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Concurrent findings of fact
- jurisdiction under Article 227
- perversity
- reappreciation of evidence
- scope of writ jurisdiction
