MAHABIR PRASAD SINGH versus M/S JACKS AVIATION PVT. LTD.

Citation: [1998] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 675 · Decided: 13-11-1998 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. SAGHIR AHMAD · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

MAHABIR PRASAD SINGH 
A 
v. 
MIS JACKS AVIATION PVT. LTD. 
NOVEMBER 13, 1998 
[S. SAGHIR AHMAD AND K.T. THOMAS, JJ.J. 
B 
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 : 
Section 115(1)-Revisional jurisdiction of High Court-Suit for recovery 
of possession pending before Trial Court-Advocate abstaining from the C 
Court on account of boycott call by Bar-Application for suo motu transfer 
of case-Dismissed by Trial Court on the ground that there was no provision 
for transfer of case-Revision petition entertained by High Court-Stay of 
proceedings of trial Court-Validity of-Held, no legal infirmity in the order 
of trial Court-High Court not to interfere with the orders of subordinate 
Court unless the order if allowed to stand would occasion a failure of justice D 
or cause irreparable injury to the party-Thus High Court committed 
jurisdictional error in entertaining the revision petition. 
Section 24-P/ea for transfer of case from one Court to another-
Opposite party has no objection to change-Held, change of Court not 
allowable merely because opposite party has no objection for such change-
E 
If allowed parties combine together can avoid a Court and get Court of their 
own Choice. 
Judicial process-Duty of Court-Boycott call by Bar Association-
Advocate abstaining from attending the Court-Held, it is the solemn duty 
of every Court to proceed with the judicial process and not to yield to F 
pressure tactics or boycott calls-No Advocate can avoid a Court on the 
ground that he does not want to appear in that Court. 
Appellant filed a civil suit before the Additional District Judge for 
recovery of possession of a building. In view of certain admissions made in 
the written statement by respondent, appellant filed an application under G 
Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure for pronouncing a judgment 
Respondent filed objections to the said application and prayed for its dismissal 
When the application came up for arguments, respondent filed a petition for 
transfer of the case suo motu on the ground that counsel for the respondent 
would not be in a position to attend the Court as the Bar Association has H 
675 
676 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1998] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A decided to boycott that Court. The Additional District Judge passed an order 
holding that there was no provision under section 151 CPC for transfer of 
the case. On revision, the High Court while entertaining the revision petition, 
stayed proceedings before the Trial Court. Appellant, with the intention to 
~
get speedy relief, made a statement before the High Court that the has no 
objection for transferring the case to another Court. The matter was adjourned 
B from time to time and posted to a far off date. Being aggrieved by this, the 
appellant has preferred the present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1.1. The order passed by the Additional District Judge has no 
C legal infirmity. The High Court has committed a jurisdictional error in 
entertaining the revision petition and passing the impugned order. Thus, the 
revisional proceedings are quashed. [683-C-D) 
1.2. The order is clearly not revisable by the High Court in view of the 
D specific interdict embodied in the proviso to Section 115(1) of the Code. 
Under the same sub-section, High Court is empowered to call for the records 
of any case which has been decided by any Court subordinate thereto, if it 
had exceeded or failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it, or had acted 
illegally or with material irregularity. In such cases the High Court has 
power to make such order as it thinks fit. The restriction against exercise 
E of such a general power has been incorporated in the proviso which was 
inserted in the sub-section by the CPC Amendment Act of 1976. The proviso 
provides that the High Court shall not vary or reverse any order except 
where (a) the order it made would finally dispose of the suit or other 
proceedings or (b) the order if allowed to stand, would occasion a failure of 
justice or cause irreparable injury to the party against whom it was made. 
F Out of the two clauses in the proviso the former has no application to the 
order which has been challenged in the High Court because even if the 
application of the respondent filed on 21.5.1998 was granted, the suit would 
not have been finally disposed of. The latter clause could be resorted to only 
if that order, if allowed to stand, would occasion a failure of justice or cause 
G irreparable injury to the resp

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