Supreme Court's Judgment: High Court Remedies Prioritized over Special Leave Jurisdiction

On May 16, the Supreme Court of India delivered a judgment in the case of Jini Dhanrajgir & Anr v Shibu Mathew & Anr. 

A Bench of Justices AS Bopanna and Dipankar Datta observed that parties would not be allowed to invoke special leave jurisdiction to bypass remedies available at the High Court level, except in two specific situations.

The Court noted that as a matter of practice, the top court entertains Special Leave Petitions (SLP) without the High Court being approached only when there is a substantial question of general importance, or a similar issue is pending for consideration. The power to grant leave under Article 136 itself being discretionary, the Court would not allow a party to bypass the remedy available at the level of the High Court without the two situations being satisfied.

The Court was hearing a contempt petition to punish the respondents for willful disobedience of an order of the top court passed in an SLP, finally deciding a property dispute. The SLP had put quietus to the dispute between the parties while marginally enhancing compensation granted to the respondents, who were ordered to hand over possession of the disputed property.

During the pendency of the execution petition, the High Court directed the executing court to decide the respondents’ objections. Based on this direction, the executing court found the objections maintainable and deemed it necessary to adjudicate on their own merits after recording of evidence. The daughter and son of the original plaintiff appealed against this interim order and also sought removal of resistance by the respondents.

The issue before the top court was whether or not interference with the common order under appeal was called for. On examination of the peculiar facts, it was stated that there was at least a need for an enquiry by the executing court. The top court thus dismissed the petitions, noting that there was no reason for it to interfere, particularly since the order of the executing court was not challenged before the High Court.

The Court made it clear that the Executing Court shall proceed to deal with the application of the Appellants under Rule 97 of Order XXI of the CPC together with the objections raised by the Respondents on their own merits and without being influenced by any observation made in this order which has been necessitated only for disposal of the present appeals.

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Jini Dhanrajgir & Anr v Shibu Mathew & Anr is a reminder of the need to adhere to the remedies available at the High Court level, except in two specific situations. The Court’s decision to dismiss the petitions and direct the Executing Court to proceed to deal with the application of the Appellants under Rule 97 of Order XXI of the CPC together with the objections raised by the Respondents on their own merits is an important one.(alert-success)