LexG.L. VIJAIN versus K. SHANKAR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
• • G.L. VIJAIN v. K. SHANKAR NOVEMBER 24, 2006 (S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.] Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960-s.25- Power of High Court to imppse condition for entertaining an application- A B In exercise of Revisional jurisdiction-Held : Where the Court is of the view that a case is a fit case where revisional jurisdiction should he exercised, for C admission of the same, no condition can he imposed-Such power should he provided for in the statute itself-Revisional court would exercise its jurisdiction if the conditions precedent laid down in s. 25 are fulfilled- Jurisdiction under Section 2 5 being wider than the jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC, limitation under Section 115 is not applicable-High Court even D under its inherent jurisdiction cannot impose such condition only after admission of the petition-Such condition can be imposed only for grant of stay-Code of Civil Procedure, 1908-Sections 115, 151. Court Proceedings-Incidental proceedings and supplemental proceedings-Distinction between. E Words and Phrases-'Ancillary' and 'Incidental'-Meaning of The question for consideration in the present appeal is whether the High Court has power to impose condition while admitting a Revision Petition under Section 25 of the Tamil Na du Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. F Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. While court can impose conditions while granting stay in exercise of its jurisdiction under Order XLI, Rule 5 of CPC, it cannot pass any such order where the appellate or revisionaljurisdiction is to be exercised. G By saying so it does not mean that the revision petitions are to be Admitted as a matter of course. This Court, while exercising its revisional jurisdiction, may also consider the merit of the matter and may not admit the same. But, in <any event, upon application of mind, if the court comes to the conclusion 583 H 584 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 9 S.C.R. A that it is a fit case where revisional jurisdiction should be exercised no condition therefor can be imposed. Such conditions can be imposed only when the court considers the question of grant of stay. (590-D-F( Devi Theatre v. Vishwanath Raju, (2004) 7 SCC 337, relied on. B Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd v. Federal Motors (P) Ltd., (2005) 1 SCC 705, referred to. 2. The revisional jurisdiction, however, in effect and substance is an appellate jurisdiction. (588-D-EI C Narinder Mohan Arya v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors., [2006J 4 sec 713, relied on. 3. It is one thing to say that the court has an incidental, ancillary or inherent power, but, it is another thing to say that its revisional jurisdiction can be curtailed by imposing condition while admitting a revisional application. D Incidental or ancillary powers are provided for in CPC. They othenvise inhere in the jurisdiction of the court exercising plenary jurisdiction in certain situations but it must be stated that an appellate court can exercise the incidental or ancillary power only after the appeal has been entertained and not as a condition precedent for entertaining the same. [587-D-F[ E 4. The court's power to impose condition for entertaining an application must be provided for under the statute itself. Whereas while exercising its jurisdiction under Order IX, Rule 7 CPC the court can impose conditions in regard to payment of costs, but while exercising its power under Order IX, Rule 13 thereof, the court can exercise a larger jurisdiction in the sense F that it can impose other condition. f588-F-Hl Tea Auction ltd. v. Grace Hill Tea !ndust1y and Anr., (2006) 9 SCALE 223, referred to. 5. Incidental power is to be exercised in aid to the final proceedings. G Such proceedings which are in aid of the final proceedings cannot, thus, be held to be at par with supplemental proceedings which may not have anything to do with the ultimate result of the suit. Such a supplemental proceeding is initiated with a view to prevent the ends of justice from being defeated. Supplemental proceedings may not be taken recourse to in a routine manner but only when an exigency of situation arises therefore. There are well-defined H .. G.L. VIJAIN v. K. SHANKAR [S.B. SINHA, J.] 585 parameters laid down by the Court from time to time as regards the A applicability of the supplemental proceedings.1587-F-H; 588-A-BJ 6. Incidental proceedings are, however, taken recourse to in
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.