Nagpur: Supreme Court recently set aside a Bombay High Court ruling that rejected a property suit, holding that Nagpur bench exceeded the narrow limits of its revisional jurisdiction and effectively “donned the hat of trial court” while examining an application to reject the complaint. The top court said Nagpur bench consumed substantial judicial time on an issue that did not warrant such an extensive inquiry. “Prudent use of judicial time must remain the foremost institutional priority,” it said.A bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma allowed two appeals by Madhav Vidarbha Estate Private Ltd and revived the special civil suit before the joint civil judge here.The suit was filed by International Asset Reconstruction Company and Madhav Vidarbha Estate seeking cancellation of two sale deeds concerning a disputed property, possession and damages. The plaintiffs alleged the respondents fraudulently obtained possession of the property.The dispute arose from HC’s May 8, 2024, judgment allowing revision petitions filed by respondents. HC rejected the plaint after the trial court declined applications under Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), seeking dismissal of the suit at the threshold.Supreme Court noted that HC’s 118-paragraph judgment contained no finding identifying how the trial court erred in rejecting the applications. It also faulted HC for examining material beyond the plaint and documents attached to it. “With a deep sense of anguish,” the bench said, “the very fundamentals of consideration of an application under CPC seem not to be present in the mind of HC.”Trial court proceedings had been stayed since 2019, with the apex court noting the trial court had adjourned the matter 34 times because of the stay. Nearly nine years after the suit was instituted, written statements had still not been filed.Supreme Court disapproved of the routine practice of high courts staying trials merely while issuing a notice in challenges to interlocutory orders. “Such a stay should ordinarily be avoided unless continuation of the trial is found, on deeper examination than a prima facie assessment, to cause serious and irreparable prejudice,” it said.Supreme Court directed the defendants to file written statements within eight weeks and requested the trial court to frame issues within the next six weeks. It left all questions of fact and law open for determination by the trial court and directed that proceedings be conducted uninfluenced by observations made either by Supreme Court or High Court.
