ABHAY SINGH SURANA versus INDIAN RAYON & INDUSTRIES LTD.

Citation: [1988] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 204 · Decided: 03-08-1988 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SABYASACHI MUKHERJI · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
ABHA Y SINGH SURANA 
v. 
INDIAN RAYON & INDPSTRIES LTD. 
AUGUST ·3;' 1988 
B 
[SABYASACHI MUKHARJI AND L.M. SHARMA, JJ.] 
Letters Patent of 1865 of Calcutta High Court: Clause 13-Extra-
ordinary original jurisdiction-Exercise of by High .Court-Conditions 
requisite -Ejectment suit under W.B. Premises Tenancies Act, 1956 
and title suit transferred to High Court by consent of parties--But 
C retransferred to trial court-Held disposal of suit by High Court would 
serve purpose of justice. 
Constitution of India-Art. 136-Proceeding at a preliminary 
stage-Interference-When called for. 
D 
Practice and Procedure: Disposal of suits by High Court would 
serve purpose of justice-Lesser number of appeals and possibility of 
settlement. 
The appellant let out his godown to a Textile company, which was 
subsequently amalgamated with the respondent Company, under a 
E scheme of amalgamation approved by the High Court. 
On August 29, 1985 the appellant issued a notice to the erstwhile 
company under s. 106 of the Transfer of Property Act read withs. 13(6) 
of West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956 to quit and hand over 
vacant possession of the godown. Thereafter he filed a suit for eviction 
F 
in the City Civil Court .against the erstwhile Company and the respon-
dent Company. The respondent also filed a suit under Order 39(1) and 
(2) of the Civil Procedure Code for temporary injunction restraining 
the appellant from disconnecting electricity in the said premises. 
The appellant tiled an application in the High Court under clause 
G 13 of the Letters Patent for transfer of the two suits on the ground that 
the respondent had adopted. dilatory tactics and had taken several 
adjournments to file written statement, and that the original records 
relating to amalgamation were available in the High Court. By consent 
of the parties, the High Court transferred these suits to itself for trying 
in its extraordinary original civil jurisdictioin. 
H 
204 
A.S. SURANA v. INDIAN RAYON 
205 
When the suits appeared before the Single Judge, it was rep-
A 
resented that the snits were transferred to the High Cburt only on ihe 
understanding that the suits would be settled and that the efforts to 
settle the suit had failed. Hence,,-t"he Judge fixed a date for hearing of 
the two suits. On February 17, 1988 the respondent filed an application 
for recalling the order of transfer. 
· 
Accordingly, the· High Court . recalled its earlier or«!er and 
retransferred them to the City Civil Co~rt. 
Aggrieved, the appellant filed an appeal by special leave, contend-
ing that there was simply an agreement to have the suits transferred to 
the High Court for quick and expeditious disposal, in .view of the long 
delay in filing written statements. 
The Respondent, however, contended that the agreement was that 
the suits would be settled in the High Court. 
B 
c 
Disposing of the appeal, 
D 
HELD: .I.I Clause 13 of the Letters Patent enables the High 
Court to exercise the extraordinary original civil jurisdiction. The 
Letters Patent contemplates two contingencies for the High Court to 
exercise extraordinary jurisdiction, namely, on agreement of the 
parties to that effect, the suits be transferred and, secondly', for the 
E 
purpose of justice. It further stipulates that the reasons for so .Jibing to 
be recorded on the proceedings in the High Court. [209C-D l 
1.2 /The disposal of the suits by the High Court would serve the 
purpose" of justice. It would shorten litigation' in the sense that there 
would be lesser number of appeals to the higher Court and the pos-
F 
sibility of settlement is there in the High Court more-than anywhere 
else. Suits are . likely to be more expeditiously disposed of under the 
supervision of the High Conrt Judge than before the City Civil Court or 
the Court subordinate to High Court. [210B] 
1.3 The purpose of justice must be determined by reference to 
G 
the circumstonces of each case and the balance of convenience hav-
ing regard to those circumstances, is one of the matters for considera-
tion. [210D I 
In the instant case,.even though initially the agreement to' transfer 
might have been on the basis that the suits would be settled but the 
H 
206 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1988] Supp. 2 S.C.R. 
A 11greement 'to transfer was not unequivocal. The possibUlty of settlel)lent 
might have been the motivation. But the High Court has, undoubtedly, 
for the purpose of justice, rightly power to dispose of the suits. Ha

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.