D.L.F HOUSING & CONSTRUCTION COMPANY PRIVATE LTD., NEW DELHI versus SARUP SINGH AND OTHERS

Citation: [1970] 2 S.C.R. 368 · Decided: 12-09-1969 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: C.A. VAIDYIALINGAM · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 4 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

368 
D.L.F. HOUSING & CONSTRUCTION COMPANY 
A 
PRIVATE LTD., NEW DELHI 
v. 
SARUP SINGH AND OTHERS 
September 12, 1969 
(C. A. VAIDIALINGAM AND I. D. DUA, JJ.J 
. 
Code of Civil Procedure (Act 5 of 1908) ss. 115, 151 
and 141-
Jurisdiction of the High Court under. 
The appellant company filed a suit against the respondents in the 
court of the Senior Subordinate Judge, Gurgaon, for the specific perfor-
mance of an agreement for the purchase of certain land by the company 
from the re·spondents. 
Part of the land in question became the sub.iect 
of proceedings under the Land 
Acquisition 
Act, 
1894, and dispute 
relating to compensation was refe:rred to the Court of the District Judge. 
The court fixed the comPensation at over Rs. 2 Jakhs. A disoute as to 
apportionment ·of the compensation was also referred under s. · 30 of the 
Land Acquisition Act to the court but the proceedings \Vere stayed by 
the Additional District Judge. pending decision of the suit for specific 
performance by the Senior Sub6rdinate Judge. 
The suit was dismissed 
and thereupon the respondents. applied to the Additional District Judie 
for continuation of proceedings under s. 30 and for paymen·t of com-
pensation to them. 
The appellant company resisted the application on 
the ground that it had filed an appeal in the High Court against the 
decree of the Senior Subordinate Judge, 
The Additional District Judge 
after hearing both parties stayed the proceedings under s. 30 pending 
disposal of the company's a11peal by the High Court. Ori a revision appli-
cation under s. 115 C.P.C. filed by the respondents, 
the High Court 
ordered on March 18, 1969 that .i sum of not m6re than Rs. 1,78,000 
out of the compensation for the acquired land be paid to the respondents 
who must undertake not Iv sell the rest of the land during the pendoncy 
of the appeal. 
The Additional District Judge after hearin~ the parties 
judicially interpretted the order to mean that Rs. 1,78.000 were to be 
paid to the respondents after the conclusion of the proceedings under 
s. 30. 
The resoondento;; again moved the Hi~h Court with an application 
under s. 151/141 C.P.C. for a clarifioation of its earlier order whereupon 
bv order dated May 8. 1969 the High Court ordered immediate payment. 
The company challenged the Hiµh Court's orders dated March 18, I 969 
and May 8, 1969 in an appeal before this Court. It w3' contended on 
its b~h::tlf that in 
making its first order the High Court· exceeded 
its iurisdiction u .1 s 115 C.P .C. and in making the c!arificatory order 
ex-parte it violated the rules of natural justice. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
HELD : (i) The position is firmly established that while exercising its 
jurisdiction under s. 115, it is not competent to the High Court to correct 
errors of fact however gross or even errors of law unless the errors have 
relation to the ju:risdiction of the Court to try ·the dispute itself. 
Cl~usc.s 
(a) and (b) of this section on their: nlain reading quite clearly did not cover 
the present case bec-ause 1t had not been shown that the learned Additional 
Sessions Judge had either exercised a jurisdiction not vested in him by 
law or h2d failed to exercise a iurisdiction so vested in him in recording 
H 
the order that the proceedings under reference be stayed till the deci~ion 
of the appeal -by the High Court in the proceedings for specific performance 
of the agreement in question. Clause (c) of the section also did not apply 
_ 
A 
8 
c 
D.LF. HOUSING co. v. SARUP SINGH (Dua, J.) 
369 
to the pres~nt case. 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 ar'rived at but merely to the manner 
in 
;which 
it is reached. The errors contemplated by this clause may relate either to 
breach of some provision of law or to material defects of procedure affect-
ing the ultimate decision, and not to errors of either fact or of law, after 
the prescribed procedure has been complied with. [375 D-GJ 
The High Court had not adverted to the limitation imposed on its 
power under s. 115 of the Code. and had treated the revision as if it was 
an appeal. Merely beeause the High Court would have tfelt inclined, had 
it dealt with the matter initi!Uy, to come to a different conclusion on the 
que3tion of continuing stay of the reference proceedings pending .decision 
of the appeal could hardly justify interference on revision under s.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.