The Supreme Court has allowed an appeal against an order of the Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench), thereby restoring the decree of eviction passed by the Trial Court. A Bench comprising Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Joymalya Bagchi held that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution by interfering with a “well reasoned order” of the Appellate Court. The Court clarified that a pursis filed by a counsel stating “no instructions” is distinct from an application for withdrawal of Vakalatnama, and the rigorous procedure for the latter cannot be imposed on the former to benefit a litigant who remains evasive.
The central legal issue was whether the Trial Court was justified in proceeding to decide a suit without issuing fresh notice to the defendants after their counsel filed a pursis (Exhibit-42) claiming “no instructions.” The High Court had set aside the decree, holding that the procedure for withdrawal of Vakalatnama was not followed, thereby denying the defendants an opportunity to present their case.
The Supreme Court overturned the High Court’s decision, observing that the counsel had not sought withdrawal of the Vakalatnama but merely claimed no instructions. Consequently, the Court restored the Trial Court’s judgment and decree dated June 16, 2021.
Background of the Case
The appellant, Shri Digant, instituted Civil Suit No. 85 of 2014 seeking possession of the suit property under Section 16(1)(g) and (n) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999.
Initially, the suit proceeded ex parte against the defendants due to their non-appearance. Subsequently, the defendants applied for a recall of the ex parte order, which was allowed, and they filed their written statements.
During the proceedings, the counsel for the defendants submitted a pursis (Exhibit-42) informing the Court that “he has not been provided instructions by his clients despite letter sent to them.” The Trial Court proceeded with the suit, recorded the plaintiff’s evidence, and decreed the suit on March 4, 2015.
The defendants challenged this decree under Section 34 of the 1999 Act. The Appellate Court dismissed the appeal on June 16, 2021. The defendants then approached the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. The High Court, vide order dated January 30, 2023, allowed the writ petition, set aside the judgments of the lower courts, and remanded the matter to the Small Causes Court.
Arguments
Respondents (Defendants before Trial Court): Before the High Court, the respondents argued that they were not given an adequate opportunity to present their case. They contended that when their counsel submitted the pursis claiming no instructions, the Court “ought to have served a notice on them to engage another counsel.” They relied on Clause 660(4) of the Civil Manual and Rule 8(4) of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960, which prescribe the procedure for withdrawal of Vakalatnama, including a seven-day advance notice.
Appellant (Plaintiff): The appellant contended that the suit remained pending for over three months after the filing of the pursis and the decision, yet no effort was made by the defendants to contest the proceedings. It was argued that the counsel had not withdrawn the Vakalatnama but only claimed no instructions. Furthermore, the appellant submitted that the defendants never claimed they did not receive the letter sent by their counsel, implying the fault lay with the party, not the advocate.
Court’s Analysis
On the Scope of Article 227: The Bench referred to the decision in Radhey Shyam & another v. Chhabi Nath & Ors. (2015), reiterating that judicial orders of civil courts are not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 but can be questioned under Article 227. Justice Misra and Justice Bagchi observed that the power under Article 227 is to be used “sparingly” and only in cases of grave injustice, such as when a court assumes jurisdiction it does not have or fails to exercise jurisdiction it possesses.
On the ‘No Instructions’ Pursis vs. Withdrawal of Vakalatnama: The Apex Court scrutinized the Appellate Court’s findings, noting that the Appellate Court had dealt with the issue “threadbare.” The Supreme Court highlighted that the pursis (Exhibit-42) “nowhere indicating the withdrawal of vakalatnama.”
The Court observed:
“The High Court without any justification went on to consider the procedure prescribed for withdrawal of Vakalatnama when neither withdrawal of Vakalatnama was permitted by the Trial Court nor the pursis prayed for its withdrawal. In such circumstances, the entire exercise of the High Court was misconceived.”
On the Conduct of the Defendants: The Supreme Court upheld the Appellate Court’s view that the defendants were “evasive” regarding the receipt of the notice sent by their advocate. The Appellate Court had noted that the notice sent by the advocate by RPAD carried a general presumption of service under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act.
The Supreme Court affirmed the Appellate Court’s reasoning:
“The casualness and indifferent attitude of the appellant is very much crystal clear, when he has refused to make any statement about the receipt or non receipt of letter dated 20/11/2014 issued by advocate Shri. S.S.Sitani.”
The Bench further noted:
“In our view, once the appellate court took into consideration all relevant aspects including the fact that pursis (Exh.42) did not seek withdrawal of the Vakalatnama, and withdrawal was not even permitted, there was no such jurisdictional error which warranted exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.”
Decision
The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court “clearly exceeded its jurisdiction under Article 227” by interfering with the well-reasoned order of the Appellate Court.
The Court ordered:
“The appeal is, accordingly, allowed. The order passed by the High Court dated 30.01.2023 is set aside. Writ Petition No. 4227 of 2021 shall stand dismissed.”
The order of the Trial Court, as affirmed by the Appellate Court, was restored.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Shri Digant vs M/S. P.D.T. Trading Co. & Ors.
- Case Number: Civil Appeal No(s). 13801/2025 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 5813/2023)
- Coram: Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Joymalya Bagchi
- Citation: 2025 INSC 1352
