LexS. TIRUPATHI RAO versus M. LINGAMAIAH & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2024] 7 S.C.R. 1077 : 2024 INSC 544 S. Tirupathi Rao v. M. Lingamaiah & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 7920-7921 of 2024) 22 July 2024 [Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Dutta,* JJ.] Issue for Consideration 1. Whether the High Court has, in the impugned judgment, exercised the jurisdiction of review in accordance with the parameters set out in Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure? 2. Whether the High Court has, in the impugned judgment, erroneously entertained contempt petition which was barred by limitation? Headnotes† Civil Procedure Code – Order XLVII Rule 1 – Power to review, not an inherent power, it has to be specifically conferred by law – Contours and extent of review jurisdiction – Explained: Held: The exercise of review jurisdiction is not an inherent power given to the court; the power to review has to be specifically conferred by law – In civil proceedings, review jurisdiction is governed by Section 114 read in conjunction with Order XLVII of the CPC and the court has to be certain that the elements prescribed therein are satisfied before exercising such power – The provisions therein relating to review of an order or decree are mandatory in nature and any petition for review not satisfying the rigours therein cannot be entertained ex debito justitiae, by a court of law. [Paras 11, 12] Civil Procedure Code – Order XLVII Rule 1 – Order cannot be reviewed merely because it is erroneous on merits – An error apparent on the face of the record has to be self-evident: Held: A decision cannot be reviewed merely because it is erroneous on merits, since that would fall squarely within the province of a court exercising appellate jurisdiction – To succeed in a motion for review, viewed through the prism of ‘error apparent on the face of the record’, it does neither require long-drawn arguments nor * Author 1078 [2024] 7 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports an elaborate process of reasoning as these may be required, in a given case, when exercising the power of merit review – An error apparent on the face of the record has to be self-evident – Where, conceivably, two opinions can be formed in a given set of facts and circumstances and one opinion of the two has been formed, there is no error apparent on the face of the record. [Paras 20, 25] Constitution of India – Article 129 & 215 – Inherent power of contempt – Explained: Held: The purpose of the law of contempt is to secure public respect and confidence in the judicial process – The power of the Supreme Court and a High Court to punish for breach of its orders is expressly recognised by Articles 129 and 215 of the Constitution, respectively – It is an inherent power, distinguishable from a power derived from a statute. [Paras 28, 29] Contempt of Courts Act – Bounden duty on the contemnor to comply with the court’s order without any delay – Punishment for proved contempt must be in accordance with the procedure prescribed by the Contempt of Courts Act: Held: There lies a bounden duty on the contemnor to comply with the court’s order without any delay, in a case where legal recourse has not been taken to set aside/review/vacate the order which is alleged to have been breached – A public official against whom an allegation of contempt is levelled, upon being noticed either by issuance of a rule for contempt or by court notice, must work out his remedy in accordance with law if he wishes not to comply with the court’s direction – Not only any order imposing punishment for proved contempt must be in accordance with the procedure prescribed by the Act but initiation of the proceedings too has to be in accordance with the three modes that the Act envisages. [Paras 39, 40] Contempt of Courts Act – Role of contempt petitioner is only as an informer – The endeavour of the court in contempt petition is to uphold the majesty, dignity and prestige of the courts: Held: The role of a party, who brings a petition for contempt and activates the court’s machinery, is merely that of an informer – Whether or not to take the assistance of the petitioning informer is a question which invariably must be left entirely to the discretion of the court seized of the proceedings – In exercising its jurisdiction to punish for contempt, the courts in India do keep in mind the [2024] 7 S.C.R. 1079 S. Tirupathi Rao v. M. Lingamaiah & Ors. benefit that could accrue to the petitioning informer (if he is a party to the parent proceedings out of
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.