Art. 226 | High Courts Cannot Reweigh Evidence Or Interfere With Factual Findings In Certiorari Jurisdiction : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that the Writ of Certiorari cannot be issued by the High Court to review or reweigh the evidence based on which subordinate courts decided a matter. The Court reiterated that such a jurisdiction is issued only to correct errors of jurisdiction committed by Courts or Tribunals, but not for reappreciation of evidence or acting as a Court of appeal. Holding so, a bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi set aside the Karnataka High Court's judgment passed in exercise of its writ jurisdiction, which had returned the findings of the First Appellate Court, which was arrived after due consideration of evidence on record. “…once the First Appellate Court, being fully competent to adjudicate the appeal, had returned findings after due consideration of the evidence on record, it cannot be said that such findings were tendered without jurisdiction or in excess of it. Thus, in our considered opinion, the High Court, while exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, could not have set aside the findings returned in Paragraph 24.”, the Court observed. A suit for partition was dismissed by the trial court, holding plaintiffs failed to prove their rights. The First Appellate Court upheld the dismissal, but in Paragraph 24 returned the trial court's findings on the genuineness of the sale deeds. A purchaser, being aggrieved by the First Appellate Court's decision, filed a writ petition challenging only Paragraph 24. The High Court set aside the findings as "unsupported by pleadings" without issuing notice to Defendant No.1 and No.6, whose rights were affected, prompting an appeal before the Supreme Court. Allowing the appeal, the judgment authored by Justice Karol held that the High Court transgressed certiorari jurisdiction by re-appreciating evidence and violated natural justice by deciding without hearing affected parties, restoring the First Appellate Court's judgment. “It is trite law that while exercising such jurisdiction, the High Court does not act as a Court of appeal over findings, more so, of facts recorded by the subordinate Courts or Tribunals. The High Court does not review or reweigh the evidence upon which the determination of the subordinate Courts is purported to be based. Such a writ jurisdiction may be invoked in cases where there is an error of law, jurisdictional error, or patent illegality.”, the Court observed. The Court said that the High Court erred in interfering with the First Appellate Court's findings in exercise of its Writ Jurisdiction, even though the impugned findings before the High Court were arrived at after giving due consideration to the evidence on record. “The observations made in Paragraph 24 were not returned dehors the evidence placed on record or in the absence thereof but were arrived at upon consideration of evidence adduced by the parties during the course of trial.”, the Court observed, while noting that the High Court transgressed its jurisdiction to interfere with the findings of the First Appellate Court rendered after due consideration to the pleadings and evidence on record. In terms of the aforesaid, the appeal was allowed. The judgment passed by the First Appellate Court was restored.HeadnoteConstitution of India, 1950; Article 226 – Writ of Certiorari – Scope and Contours of Supervisory Jurisdiction – Held: While exercising extraordinary and certiorari jurisdiction under Article 226, the High Court does not act as a Court of Appeal over findings of facts recorded by subordinate Courts or Tribunals - It does not review or reweigh the evidence upon which the determination of the subordinate court is based - Such writ jurisdiction may be invoked only in cases where there is an error of law, jurisdictional error, or patent illegality, but not to correct an error of fact, however grave it may appear to be - Once a competent Civil Court (First Appellate Court) arrives at a finding of fact upon independent examination and appreciation of pleadings and evidence, the High Court cannot set aside such findings under Article 226. [Relied on Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences v. Bikartan Das, (2023) 16 SCC 462; C. Basappa v. T. Nagappa, (1954) 1 SCC 905; Paras 12 - 14]Principles of Natural Justice – Audi Alteram Partem – Ex-Parte Orders Impacting Civil Rights – Held: The opportunity of being heard lies at the very heart of procedural fairness, ensuring that no one is condemned or adversely affected without being given an opportunity to present their case - The non-observance of natural justice is itself a prejudice to any person who has been denied justice - When a High Court proceeds to decide a writ petition ex-parte and dispenses with service of notice to the affected party whose ownership, possession, and rights over the suit schedule property are directly impacted, it results in a clear violation of the doctrine of audi alteram partem - Such parties are not merely proper parties...

Art. 226 | High Courts Cannot Reweigh Evidence Or Interfere With Factual Findings In Certiorari Jurisdiction : Supreme Court

Yash Mittal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Yash Mittal

Art. 226 | High Courts Cannot Reweigh Evidence Or Interfere With Factual Findings In Certiorari Jurisdiction : Supreme Court

Yash Mittal

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Yash Mittal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers