Supreme Court Restores Status Quo in Property Dispute: Tek Singh vs. Shashi Verma (2019)

Date of the Judgment: 04 February 2019
Citation: (2019) INSC 93
Judges: R.F. Nariman, J. and Vineet Saran, J.
Can a High Court overturn concurrent findings of fact by lower courts in a revision petition, especially when the order is an interim one? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical procedural question in a case involving a property dispute. The Court emphasized the limitations of revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), particularly concerning interlocutory orders. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice R.F. Nariman and Justice Vineet Saran.

Case Background

The dispute began when Shashi Verma (Respondent No. 1) filed a civil suit on 05 March 2013, seeking a declaration that she was running a business in Shop No. 3, owned by Respondent No. 2, based on a partnership deed dated 28 January 2013. She claimed that Tek Singh (Appellant) had illegally dispossessed her from the shop between 03-04 March 2013. She also sought a permanent injunction against Tek Singh to prevent further interference. Tek Singh, in his written statement, claimed that he had been a tenant of the landlady (Respondent No. 2) since 2004. The landlady also confirmed that Tek Singh was her tenant since 2004, besides acknowledging the partnership with Respondent No. 1. An application under Order 39 Rule 1 of the CPC was dismissed by the Single Judge on 21 April 2015, and the appeal before the Additional District Judge was also dismissed on 19 December 2016.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Civil Judge, Senior Division, Solan, initially dismissed the application for interim relief. The Additional District Judge also dismissed the appeal, observing that Tek Singh was in possession of the suit property since 2004 as a tenant of the landlady. The High Court of Himachal Pradesh, however, set aside these concurrent findings in a revision petition, without addressing the reasons given by the first appellate court. The High Court seemed to be influenced by a police complaint filed on 03 February 2013, which allegedly indicated dispossession.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court highlighted the proviso to Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), which was amended in 1999. The proviso states:

“Provided that the High Court shall not, under this Section, vary or reverse any order made, or any order deciding an issue, in the course of a suit or other proceeding, except where the order, if it had been made in favour of the party applying for revision, would have finally disposed of the suit or other proceedings.”

This provision makes it clear that revision petitions under Section 115 CPC are not maintainable against interlocutory orders. The Court also referred to the limitations on revisional jurisdiction, stating that it should be exercised only to correct jurisdictional errors. The Court cited the case of D.L.F. Housing & Construction Company Private Ltd., New Delhi vs. Sarup Singh and Others (1970) 2 SCR 368, which clarified that the High Court cannot correct errors of fact or law unless they relate to the jurisdiction of the court trying the dispute.

Arguments

The appellant argued that the High Court had exceeded its revisional jurisdiction by interfering with concurrent findings of fact. The appellant contended that the High Court had failed to consider the limitations imposed by Section 115 of the CPC and the settled legal position regarding the scope of revisional jurisdiction.

The respondents argued in support of the High Court’s judgment, citing the case of Dorab Cawasji Warden vs. Coomi Sorab Warden and Others (1990) 2 SCC 117, which deals with the grant of interlocutory mandatory injunctions. They contended that the High Court was justified in setting aside the lower courts’ orders to restore the status quo. The respondents emphasized that a mandatory injunction can be granted to undo acts that have been illegally done or to restore what was wrongfully taken.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section, but the core issue was whether the High Court had rightly exercised its revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the CPC to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts, particularly when the order was interlocutory.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment, restoring the judgments of the lower courts. The Court emphasized that the High Court had failed to consider the limitations imposed by Section 115 of the CPC and had incorrectly interfered with concurrent findings of fact. The Court also noted that the suit filed under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act is a summary proceeding and directed the trial court to dispose of the suit within six months.

The Court specifically noted that the High Court’s judgment had ignored the statutory provisions and judgments regarding the scope of revisional jurisdiction. The Supreme Court stated:

“We are constrained to observe that every legal canon has been thrown to the winds by the impugned judgment.”

The Court also highlighted the limitations of the High Court’s power under Section 115 of the CPC, stating:

“Merely because the High Court would have felt inclined, had it dealt with the matter initially, to come to a different conclusion…could hardly justify interference on revision under Section 115 of the Code.”

The Court further clarified that the revisional jurisdiction is not an appellate jurisdiction, and the High Court cannot correct errors of fact or law unless they relate to the jurisdiction of the court:

“The words ‘illegally’ and ‘with material irregularity’ as used in this clause do not cover either errors of fact or of law; they do not refer to the decision arrived at but merely to the manner in which it is reached.”

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily driven by the need to uphold the statutory limitations on the High Court’s revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the CPC. The Court emphasized that the High Court had exceeded its powers by interfering with concurrent findings of fact on an interlocutory order. The Court was also influenced by the fact that the suit was filed under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, which is a summary proceeding, and thus, the trial court should have been allowed to proceed without interference from the High Court at the interlocutory stage.

Logical Reasoning:

Key Takeaways

• The High Court’s revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the CPC is limited, especially concerning interlocutory orders.
• High Courts cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower courts in revision petitions unless there is a jurisdictional error.
• Interlocutory orders cannot be challenged in revision unless the order, if made in favour of the applicant, would have finally disposed of the suit.
• Suits under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act are summary proceedings and should be disposed of expeditiously.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the trial court to dispose of the suit within six months from the date of the judgment.

Development of Law

The judgment reinforces the limitations on the High Court’s revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the CPC, particularly concerning interlocutory orders. It clarifies that the High Court cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless there is a jurisdictional error. This ruling underscores the importance of adhering to procedural laws and the need for lower courts to be allowed to proceed without undue interference at the interlocutory stage.

Conclusion

In Tek Singh vs. Shashi Verma and Anr., the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment, restoring the lower courts’ orders. The Court emphasized that the High Court had exceeded its revisional jurisdiction by interfering with concurrent findings of fact on an interlocutory order, violating the proviso to Section 115 of the CPC. This judgment reinforces the limitations on the High Court’s revisional powers and underscores the importance of respecting the procedural framework set out in the CPC.

Category

Parent Category: Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

Child Categories: Section 115, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Revisional Jurisdiction; Interlocutory Orders; Property Disputes; Specific Relief Act, 1963; Section 6, Specific Relief Act, 1963

FAQ

Q: What is revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC)?
A: Revisional jurisdiction is the power of a higher court to review the decisions of lower courts to correct errors of jurisdiction, illegality, or material irregularity. However, this power is limited, especially concerning interlocutory orders.

Q: Can a High Court interfere with an interlocutory order in a revision petition under Section 115 of the CPC?
A: Generally, no. The proviso to Section 115 of the CPC, as amended in 1999, restricts the High Court’s power to interfere with interlocutory orders unless the order, if made in favor of the applicant, would have finally disposed of the suit.

Q: What is an interlocutory order?
A: An interlocutory order is a temporary order made during the course of a legal proceeding that does not finally determine the rights of the parties.

Q: What is a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act?
A: A suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act is a summary proceeding for the recovery of possession of immovable property by a person who has been dispossessed without their consent. It is meant to be a quick remedy for dispossession.

Q: What did the Supreme Court decide in this case?
A: The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment, restoring the lower courts’ orders, and emphasized that the High Court had exceeded its revisional jurisdiction by interfering with concurrent findings of fact on an interlocutory order.