Power Under Article 227 Of Constitution Cannot Be Used As An Appellate Or Revisional Power: Kerala HC

The Kerala High Court has reiterated that power under Article 227 of the Constitution would be restricted to interference in cases of grave dereliction of duty or flagrant violation of law and cannot be used as an appellate or revisional power.

The Court was considering a Petition filed by the Defendants in a Suit for Specific Performance of a Contract against an order of the Additional Subordinate Judge.

The single-bench of Justice K. Babu observed, "The power under Article 227 of the Constitution would be restricted to interference in cases of grave dereliction of duty or flagrant violation of law and would be exercised most sparingly in cases where grave injustice would be done unless the High Court interferes. It cannot be used as an appellate or revisional power."

The Petitioner was represented by Advocate R. Harishankar while the Respondent was represented by Advocate T.R. Harikumar.

Facts of the Case

The Trial Court had referred the matter to the Lok Adalat wherein the parties arrived at a settlement and an award was passed based on joint statement containing the terms of the agreement.

The plaintiffs had filed an Interlocutory Application Section 151 CPC (Ext.P5) seeking permission to deposit the balance sale consideration stating that the defendants did not perform their part of the contract. Consequently, the Defendants filed another Interlocutory Application under Section 28(1) of the Specific Relief Act read with Section 151 CPC to rescind the contract and set aside the decree. The Trial Court considered both petitions together and passed the impugned order allowing the former and dismissing the later.

Counsel for the Petitioners (Defendants) submitted that the Plaintiffs did not perform their part of the contract as they failed to pay the balance consideration within the stipulated time and contended that they ought to have filed an application seeking an extension of time if they desired to enlarge the time prescribed in the award. Noting that there are laches on the part of the plaintiffs, which is a ground for rescission of the contract, it was submitted that the Defendants have established the ground for getting the contract rescinded and the decree set aside.

On the other hand, Counsel for the Respondents (Plaintiffs) submitted that the laches on the part of the defendants resulted in the non-performance of the contract. The Counsel submitted that the first obligation based on contract was on the part of the defendants to hand over the necessary documents as they agreed. The Counsel further submitted that the Defendants failed to lead best evidence to establish their contention that the documents were handed over as agreed and the Defendants have not established the grounds for getting the contract rescinded.

Reasoning By Court

The Court pointed out that in the precedents relied on by the Counsel for the Petitioners, the essential fact considered was the entitlement of the decree holder to get extension of time when there is a chronic default in paying the balance consideration stipulated in the agreement or laches on the part of the decree holder in complying with the terms of the agreement.

The Court concluded that the Defendants failed to perform their part of the contract. The plaintiffs were expected to seek an extension of time for paying the balance sale consideration only in a situation where the first obligation was performed by the defendants.

Noting that the Trial Court's decision is arrived at after analysing the evidence on record, the Court stressed that the power under Article 227 of the Constitution would be restricted to interference in cases of grave dereliction of duty or flagrant violation of law.

"The supervisory jurisdiction is not available to correct mere errors of fact or law unless the following requirements are satisfied-- (1) the error is manifest or apparent on the face of the proceeding, such as when it is based on clear ignorance or utter disregard of the provisions of law; and (2) a grave injustice or gross failure of justice occasioned thereby," the Court observed.

The Petition was accordingly dismissed.

Cause Title: T.M. Leela vs. P.K. Vasu (2025:KER:3329)

Appearances:

Petitioner- Advocate R. Harishankar, Advocate Parvathy Nair

Respondent- Advocate T.R. Harikumar, Advocate Arjun Raghavan

Click here to read/ download Judgement