LexN. SURIYAKALA versus A. MOHANDOSS AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
...;.._ N. SURIYAKALA A v. A. MOHANDOSS AND ORS. FEBRUARY 12, 2007 (S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.] B ··~. Constitution of India, 1950-Article I 36-Scope of-Held: It is a residual provision which enables the Supreme Court to interfere with judgment or order of any Court or Tribunal in its discretion-Power under Art. I 36 c to be exercised sparingly and in exceptional cases only-Practice of filing SLPs against all kinds of orders of the High Court or other authorities without realizing the scope of Article 136 deprecated-Words and Phrases- "Jn its discretion"-Meaning of. The present appeal has been filed against the judgment of High Court D 4 by which it quashed the criminal case instituted by the Appellant against her husband (Respondent) under Sections 498A and 406 IPC read with Section 4 .. _ j of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Appellant has also filed a maintenance case against the Respondent. Dismissing the appeal, the Court E HELD: 1. The special leave petition was filed 978 days after the delivery of the impugned judgment i.e. after a delay of888 days. The explanation given in the delay condonation application is not satisfactory and hence the appeal is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. [Para 4] [421-E] - "" F 2. Article 136 of the Constitution is not a regular forum of appeal at all. It is a residual provision which enables the Supreme Court to interfere with the judgment or order of any court or tribunal in India in its discretion. The use of the words "in its discretion" in Article 136 clearly indicates that Article 136 does not confer a right of appeal upon any party but merely vests G a discretion in the Supreme Court to interfere in exceptional cases. Though . ~1 the discretionary power vested in the Supreme Court under Article 136 is apparently not subject to any limitation, the Court has itself imposed certain limitations upon its own powers. This power has to be exercised sparingly and in exceptional cases only. (Paras 8, 10 and 11] (422-B; D; G] 419 H 420 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007) 2 S.C.R. · A Mis. Bengal Chemical & Pharmaceutical Works Ltd v. Their Employees, ~ AIR.(1959) SC 633; Kunhayammed & Ors. v. State of Kera/a & Anr., (2000) 6 SCC 359; State of Bombay v. Rusy Mistry, AIR (1960) SC 391; Pratabgarh & Anr. v. Mahendra Singh Chawla & Ors., (1982) 3 SCC 331; Chandra Singh v. State of Rajasthan, AIR (2003) SC 2889; Ram Saran Das and Bros. v. Commercial Tax Officer, Calcutta & Ors., AIR (1962) SC 1326; Pritam Singh B v. The State, AIR (1950) SC 169; Tirupati Balaji Developers Pvt. Ltd v. State ofBihar, AIR (2004) SC 2351; Jamshed Hormusji Wadia v. Board of Trustees, Port of Mumbai, AIR (2004) SC 1815; Narpat Singh v. Jaipur Development Authority, f 2002] 4 SCC 666 and Ashok Nagar Welfare Association v. R.K. .}- c Sharma, AIR (2002) SC 335, relied on. B.S. Joshi and Ors. v. State of Hmyana & Anr., AIR (2003) SC 1386, referred to. 3. Nowadays it has become a practice of filing SLPs against all kinds of orders of the High Court or other authorities without realii;ing the scope D of Article 136. Hence it is reiterated that Article 136 was never meant to be an ordinary forum of appeal at all like Section 96 or even Section I 00 CPC. Under the constitutional scheme, ordinarily the last court in the country in ordinary cases was meant to be the High Court. The Supreme Court as the Apex Court in the country was meant to deal with important issues like econstitutional questions, question& of law of general importance or where grave E injustice had been done. If the Supreme Court entertains all and sundry kinds of cases it will soon be flooded with a huge amount of backlog and will not b~ able to deal with important questions relating to the Constitution or the law or where grave injustice has been done, for which it was really meant under the Constitutional Scheme. After all, the Supreme Court has limited time at p its disposal and it cannot be expected to hear every kind of dispute. [Para 17) (424-E-G) 4. The present case is not a fit case to be entertained in exercise of discretion under Article 136. The appellant has also filed a maintenance petition against her husband. The appellant filed the criminal case under G Section 498A etc. not only against her husband but also against her husband's father, mother, brother, sister, etc. In exercise of discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136, this Court is not in
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.