Partition suit — Interlocutory application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC — Delay in disposal — Direction for expeditious consideration — Civil Revision Petition filed seeking direction to trial Court to dispose of interlocutory application filed for grant of temporary injunction in partition suit — Suit and injunction application filed in year 2021 remained pending without disposal for considerable period — Held, interlocutory applications, particularly those seeking temporary injunction, require prompt adjudication as delay defeats the very purpose of interim relief — High Court justified in exercising supervisory jurisdiction to direct time-bound disposal without entering into merits. (Paras 2–3)

 

Constitution of India — Article 227 — Supervisory jurisdiction — Partition suit — Interlocutory application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC — Delay in disposal — Direction for expeditious consideration —

Civil Revision Petition filed seeking direction to trial Court to dispose of interlocutory application filed for grant of temporary injunction in partition suit — Suit and injunction application filed in year 2021 remained pending without disposal for considerable period — Held, interlocutory applications, particularly those seeking temporary injunction, require prompt adjudication as delay defeats the very purpose of interim relief — High Court justified in exercising supervisory jurisdiction to direct time-bound disposal without entering into merits.

(Paras 2–3)

---

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 — Temporary injunction — Nature and object —

Held, relief of temporary injunction is intended to preserve subject matter of suit and prevent irreparable injury during pendency of proceedings — Non-disposal of such application for long period renders remedy ineffective.

(Para 2 — context of relief sought)

---

Judicial delay — Interlocutory applications — Effect —

Held, prolonged pendency of interlocutory application, especially relating to alienation or alteration of property, may result in irreversible consequences and frustrate adjudication in suit — Courts are expected to dispose of such applications expeditiously.

(Paras 2–3)

---

Article 227 — Scope of interference —

Held, High Court can exercise supervisory jurisdiction to ensure expeditious disposal of pending proceedings where subordinate Court fails to act within reasonable time — Such direction does not amount to interference on merits.

(Para 3)

---

Directions —

Held, trial Court directed to dispose of interlocutory application within a period of six weeks from date of receipt of order.

(Para 3)

---

RATIO DECIDENDI

Undue delay in deciding an interlocutory application for temporary injunction defeats the purpose of interim relief, and in such circumstances the High Court can, in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227, direct the trial Court to dispose of the application within a fixed time without entering into merits.

Order I Rule 10 — Impleadment of parties — Necessary and proper party — Test — Held, a party can be impleaded only if he is a necessary or proper party to the suit — A necessary party is one without whom no effective decree can be passed, and a proper party is one whose presence is required for complete and effective adjudication — Where no relief is claimed against proposed party and no cause of action is pleaded, such party cannot be impleaded. (Paras 6–7)

 

Constitution of India — Article 227 — Supervisory jurisdiction — Interference with order refusing impleadment — Scope —

Civil Revision Petition filed challenging order of trial Court dismissing application for impleadment of proposed defendant in suit for cancellation of gift deed and permanent injunction — Trial Court held that proposed party was neither necessary nor proper party — Held, order does not suffer from any illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error — Interference under Article 227 not warranted.

(Paras 5, 8–9)

---

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order I Rule 10 — Impleadment of parties — Necessary and proper party — Test —

Held, a party can be impleaded only if he is a necessary or proper party to the suit — A necessary party is one without whom no effective decree can be passed, and a proper party is one whose presence is required for complete and effective adjudication — Where no relief is claimed against proposed party and no cause of action is pleaded, such party cannot be impleaded.

(Paras 6–7)

---

Suit for cancellation of gift deed — Parties — Scope —

Held, in a suit for cancellation of a gift deed, only parties to the document or persons claiming under them are necessary parties — A third person not connected with execution or benefit of the document is neither necessary nor proper party.

(Para 6)

---

Suit for injunction — Necessary parties —

Held, in a suit for injunction, only those persons against whom interference is alleged and against whom cause of action is disclosed are necessary parties — Absence of pleadings alleging interference by proposed party disentitles impleadment.

(Para 7)

---

Pleadings — Absence of cause of action — Effect on impleadment —

Held, where plaint does not disclose any cause of action against proposed defendant and no amendment is sought to introduce such plea, impleadment application is liable to be rejected.

(Para 7)

---

Directions / Result —

Held, Civil Revision Petition dismissed — Order refusing impleadment confirmed.

(Para 9)

---

RATIO DECIDENDI

Impleadment of a party under Order I Rule 10 CPC is permissible only when such party is necessary or proper to the adjudication of the dispute, and where no relief is claimed, no cause of action is pleaded, and the proposed party has no connection with the subject matter of the suit, refusal to implead does not warrant interference under Article 227.

Partition suit — Preliminary decree — Delay in final decree proceedings — Application for appointment of Advocate Commissioner — Direction for expeditious disposal — Civil Revision Petition filed seeking direction to trial Court to dispose of application filed for passing final decree in partition suit — Preliminary decree passed in year 2017 and application under Order XX Rule 18 CPC for division of properties by metes and bounds remained pending for several years without effective progress — Held, once preliminary decree is passed, it is incumbent upon trial Court to proceed with final decree proceedings without undue delay — Prolonged pendency defeats rights of parties and purpose of decree — High Court justified in issuing direction for time-bound disposal. (Paras 4–5)

Constitution of India — Article 227 — Supervisory jurisdiction — Partition suit — Preliminary decree — Delay in final decree proceedings — Application for appointment of Advocate Commissioner — Direction for expeditious disposal —

Civil Revision Petition filed seeking direction to trial Court to dispose of application filed for passing final decree in partition suit — Preliminary decree passed in year 2017 and application under Order XX Rule 18 CPC for division of properties by metes and bounds remained pending for several years without effective progress — Held, once preliminary decree is passed, it is incumbent upon trial Court to proceed with final decree proceedings without undue delay — Prolonged pendency defeats rights of parties and purpose of decree — High Court justified in issuing direction for time-bound disposal.

(Paras 4–5)

---

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order XX Rule 18 — Partition — Final decree proceedings — Duty of Court —

Held, after passing preliminary decree in partition suit, Court is required to take necessary steps for division of property by metes and bounds and pass final decree — Failure to proceed with such steps for long period amounts to procedural lapse warranting supervisory intervention.

(Para 5)

---

Judicial delay — Pre-2017 matters — High Court circular — Binding effect —

Held, as per High Court circular directing priority disposal of pre-2017 cases, trial Courts are under obligation to take up such matters on priority and report progress — Non-compliance with such administrative directions justifies intervention under Article 227.

(Para 5)

---

Partition proceedings — Appointment of Advocate Commissioner —

Held, where application for appointment of Advocate Commissioner is filed for effecting division of property in terms of preliminary decree, Court must act promptly to ensure completion of final decree proceedings.

(Para 4–5)

---

Directions —

Held, trial Court directed to dispose of application for final decree within fixed time frame, preferably within three months where steps are completed, and otherwise within six months after following due procedure.

(Para 5)

---

RATIO DECIDENDI

After passing a preliminary decree in a partition suit, the trial Court is under a duty to promptly proceed with final decree proceedings, and prolonged delay in adjudicating applications for division of property by metes and bounds warrants supervisory intervention under Article 227 to ensure time-bound disposal in accordance with law and administrative directions.

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Sections 34 & 36 — Arbitral award — Execution — Stay application pending — Effect — Civil Revision Petition filed challenging order of executing court proceeding with execution of arbitral award despite pendency of application seeking stay of award under Section 34 read with Section 36(2) — Held, in terms of Section 36(2), an arbitral award is executable as a decree unless stayed by a competent court — However, where an application seeking stay of the award is filed and kept pending for considerable time, the same must be decided expeditiously to avoid prejudice and to ensure that proceedings under Section 34 are not rendered infructuous. (Para 8)

 

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Sections 34 & 36 — Arbitral award — Execution — Stay application pending — Effect —

Civil Revision Petition filed challenging order of executing court proceeding with execution of arbitral award despite pendency of application seeking stay of award under Section 34 read with Section 36(2) — Held, in terms of Section 36(2), an arbitral award is executable as a decree unless stayed by a competent court — However, where an application seeking stay of the award is filed and kept pending for considerable time, the same must be decided expeditiously to avoid prejudice and to ensure that proceedings under Section 34 are not rendered infructuous.

(Para 8)

---

Execution proceedings — Arbitral award — Pendency of stay application — Balancing of rights —

Held, continuation of execution proceedings in absence of stay is legally permissible, but when stay application is pending without adjudication, Court must balance equities between parties by directing expeditious disposal of stay application and regulating execution proceedings appropriately.

(Paras 6, 8–10)

---

Delay in disposal — Stay application — Effect —

Held, non-disposal of stay application filed along with Section 34 petition for long period defeats purpose of challenge to award and may cause irreversible consequences — Courts are required to decide such applications at earliest.

(Paras 6, 8)

---

Interim protection — Conditional stay — Execution proceedings —

Held, pending disposal of stay application, execution proceedings can be stayed subject to conditions to safeguard interests of decree-holder — In present case, stay of execution granted subject to deposit of one-third of decretal amount.

(Para 10)

---

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Section 115 — Revisional jurisdiction — Scope —

Held, revisional jurisdiction can be exercised to correct procedural imbalance where subordinate court proceeds with execution without consideration of pending stay application, thereby affecting fairness of proceedings.

(Paras 8–10)

---

Directions —

Held, court dealing with Section 34 petition directed to decide stay application within four weeks — Execution proceedings stayed till such decision, subject to deposit condition.

(Paras 9–10)

---

RATIO DECIDENDI

An arbitral award is executable in the absence of a stay under Section 36(2), but where an application for stay is pending, the court must ensure its expeditious disposal and may regulate execution proceedings by granting conditional stay so as to balance the rights of both parties and prevent the challenge under Section 34 from being rendered infructuous.

Rejection of application to receive electronic evidence (pen drive) — Scope — Civil Revision Petition filed challenging docket order of trial Court rejecting application filed in matrimonial proceedings to receive electronic evidence in the form of pen drive containing video recordings allegedly depicting conduct of spouse — Trial Court held that such material was not necessary for adjudication and that not every incident in matrimonial life requires proof through such electronic material — Held, order is discretionary and based on relevance and necessity of evidence — No perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error shown — Interference under Article 227 not warranted. (Paras 3, 6, 9)

 

Constitution of India — Article 227 — Supervisory jurisdiction — Interference with interlocutory orders — Matrimonial proceedings — Rejection of application to receive electronic evidence (pen drive) — Scope —

Civil Revision Petition filed challenging docket order of trial Court rejecting application filed in matrimonial proceedings to receive electronic evidence in the form of pen drive containing video recordings allegedly depicting conduct of spouse — Trial Court held that such material was not necessary for adjudication and that not every incident in matrimonial life requires proof through such electronic material — Held, order is discretionary and based on relevance and necessity of evidence — No perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error shown — Interference under Article 227 not warranted.

(Paras 3, 6, 9)

---

Evidence — Matrimonial disputes — Electronic evidence — Relevance and necessity —

Held, in matrimonial proceedings, adjudication must be based on relevant pleadings and legally admissible evidence — Production of voluminous or intrusive electronic material is not required unless such material is foundationally pleaded and necessary for deciding core issues — Trial Court justified in refusing to receive such evidence where not essential.

(Para 6)

---

Civil Procedure — Interlocutory application — Discretion of trial Court —

Held, decision whether to receive additional evidence is within discretion of trial Court — Such discretion, when exercised judiciously on relevance and necessity, cannot be interfered with in supervisory jurisdiction.

(Paras 3, 9)

---

Article 227 — Scope and limits —

Held, power of superintendence under Article 227 is to be exercised sparingly to keep subordinate courts within bounds of their authority — Interference is warranted only in cases of patent perversity, gross illegality, or failure of justice — Mere disagreement with discretionary order is not a ground for interference.

(Paras 7–8, 9)

---

Directions / Result —

Held, Civil Revision Petition dismissed at admission stage — No interference with order of trial Court.

(Para 10)

---

RATIO DECIDENDI

An interlocutory order of the trial Court refusing to receive electronic evidence in matrimonial proceedings, based on assessment of relevance and necessity, does not warrant interference under Article 227 in the absence of perversity or jurisdictional error, as supervisory jurisdiction is confined to correcting grave illegality and not to reappreciating discretionary decisions.