Command Palette

Search for a command to run...

Back to news
Supreme Court

High Courts Must Avoid Routine Trial Stays: Supreme Court Flags Mechanical Use of Revision Powers

High Courts Must Avoid Routine Trial Stays: Supreme Court Flags Mechanical Use of Revision Powers

The Supreme Court has cautioned High Courts against routinely staying trials while hearing challenges to interlocutory orders, stating that stays should be granted only in exceptional cases involving serious and irreparable prejudice. It also warned against mechanically invoking revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), clarifying that revision cannot be exercised as an appellate power.

The appellant filed a civil suit challenging two sale deeds from 2015 and 2017, alleging illegal possession and seeking damages. The respondents sought rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, but the trial court dismissed their applications, holding that issues such as res judicata and limitation required a trial. The Bombay High Court, in revision, overturned the order and rejected the plaint. The plaintiff then approached the Supreme Court.

The bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma observed, “reading of the impugned judgment, in between the lines, would surprisingly reveal complete absence of any discussion on one question in particular: where and/or how did the Trial Court err while rejecting the applications under Order VII Rule 11, CPC? This appears to be a unique case where not a single sentence in the 118 (one hundred eighteen) paragraphs of the judgment is devoted to the Trial Court's commission of an error justifying interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.”

The Supreme Court strongly rebuked the High Court for treating a revision petition like an original proceeding and exceeding the narrow scope of inquiry under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. It held that the High Court improperly relied on material beyond the plaint and criticized the disproportionate time spent on an issue that did not warrant such an extensive judgment.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court’s judgment, and revived the suit. The defendants were given eight weeks to file written statements, with issues to be framed within six weeks thereafter.

Read Here: