[Article 227] High Court exercising supervisory jurisdiction can't re-appreciate evidence as court of first appeal: Supreme Court

The High Court exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 does not act as a court of first appeal to re-appreciate or reweigh the evidence and facts upon which the matter under challenge is based, the Supreme Court has held [M/S Garment Craft vs Prakash Chand Goel]..A Bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Bela M Trivedi held that the power under Article 227 of the Constitution, which deals with the power of superintendence over all State courts, does not enable High Courts to again weigh or appreciate the evidence and facts of the matter being challenged. "Supervisory jurisdiction (under Article 227) is not to correct every error of fact or even a legal flaw when the final finding is justified or can be supported. The High Court is not to substitute its own decision on facts and conclusion, for that of the inferior court or tribunal," the apex court held.The jurisdiction exercised is in the nature of correctional jurisdiction to set right grave dereliction of duty or flagrant violation of fundamental principles of law or justice, the Court added.The Court was hearing an appeal against a Delhi High Court judgment which had in exercise of powers under Article 227 set aside an dated July 24, 2018, of Additional District Judge (Tis Hazari). .By way of background, the respondent Prakash Chand Goel had filed a civil Delhi High Court against Garment Craft for the recovery of ₹81 lakh. However, Garment Craft stated that Goel in fact owed him ₹88 lakh due to faulty goods. After Goel led evidence, Garment Craft was due to lead evidence but the sole proprietor of the firm got embroiled in an unconnected case which led him to be jailed.Since no one appeared for the firm, the Joint Registrar of the High Court directed the closure of defence evidence. On raising the plea of pecuniary jurisdiction, the suit was transferred to the court of District Judge, Tis Hazari, Delhi.Later, on an application, the appellant firm was called to lead evidence but no one from appellant's side appeared purportedly because, the proprietor was in jail.On November 8 2016, an ex-parte judgment was passed by the Tis Hazari court decreeing the suit filed by the respondentAfter the sole proprietor was released from jail in 2017, he filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 of the CPC before the Tis Hazari court for setting aside the ex-parte decree. This was allowed by an order dated July 24, 2018, and the case was restored to its original number, and listed for defence evidence.Goel then preferred a miscellaneous petition under Article 227 of the Constitution before the High Court against the order setting aside the ex-parte decree. This was allowed by the High Court primarily for the reason that the counsel for the appellant had applied and taken a certified copy of the ex-parte judgment dated November 8, 2016, in December that year, which showed that the appellant was represented by his counsel even at that stage.The said order was in appeal before the Supreme Court..The Supreme Court held that the High Court exercising supervisory jurisdiction does not act as a court of first appeal to re-appreciate or reweigh the evidence or facts.“The power under Article 227 is exercised sparingly in appropriate cases, like when there is no evidence at all to justify, or the finding is so perverse that no reasonable person can possibly come to such a conclusion that the court or tribunal has come to. It is axiomatic that such discretionary relief must be exercised to ensure there is no miscarriage of justice,” the Court observed..The top court has noted that the discretion exercised by the trial court in granting relief, “did not suffer from an error apparent on the face of the record or was not a finding so perverse that it was unsupported by evidence to justify it.”.It, therefore, set aside the High Court judgment..[Read Judgment]