Civil Procedure Code – Order XLVII Rule 1 – Power to review, not an inherent power, it has to be specifically conferred by law – Contours and extent of review jurisdiction – Explained: Held: The exercise of review jurisdiction is not an inherent power given to the court; the power to review has to be specifically conferred by law – In civil proceedings, review jurisdiction is governed by Section 114 read in conjunction with Order XLVII of the CPC and the court has to be certain that the elements prescribed therein are satisfied before exercising such power – The provisions therein relating to review of an order or decree are mandatory in nature and any petition for review not satisfying the rigours therein cannot be entertained ex debito justitiae, by a court of law. [Paras 11, 12]
Civil Procedure Code – Order XLVII Rule 1 – Order cannot be reviewed merely because it is erroneous on merits – An error apparent on the face of the record has to be self-evident: Held: A decision cannot be reviewed merely because it is erroneous on merits, since that would fall squarely within the province of a court exercising appellate jurisdiction – To succeed in a motion for review, viewed through the prism of ‘error apparent on the face of the record’, it does neither require long-drawn arguments nor an elaborate process of reasoning as these may be required, in a given case, when exercising the power of merit review – An error apparent on the face of the record has to be self-evident – Where, conceivably, two opinions can be formed in a given set of facts and circumstances and one opinion of the two has been formed, there is no error apparent on the face of the record. [Paras 20, 25] Constitution of India – Article 129 & 215 – Inherent power of contempt – Explained:
Held: The purpose of the law of contempt is to secure public respect and confidence in the judicial process – The power of the Supreme Court and a High Court to punish for breach of its orders is expressly recognised by Articles 129 and 215 of the Constitution, respectively – It is an inherent power, distinguishable from a power derived from a statute. [Paras 28, 29]
Contempt of Courts Act – Bounden duty on the contemnor to comply with the court’s order without any delay – Punishment for proved contempt must be in accordance with the procedure prescribed by the Contempt of Courts Act:
Held: There lies a bounden duty on the contemnor to comply with the court’s order without any delay, in a case where legal recourse has not been taken to set aside/review/vacate the order which is alleged to have been breached – A public official against whom an allegation of contempt is levelled, upon being noticed either by issuance of a rule for contempt or by court notice, must work out his remedy in accordance with law if he wishes not to comply with the court’s direction – Not only any order imposing punishment for proved contempt must be in accordance with the procedure prescribed by the Act but initiation of the proceedings too has to be in accordance with the three modes that the Act envisages. [Paras 39, 40]
Contempt of Courts Act – Role of contempt petitioner is only as an informer – The endeavour of the court in contempt petition is to uphold the majesty, dignity and prestige of the courts: Held: The role of a party, who brings a petition for contempt and activates the court’s machinery, is merely that of an informer – Whether or not to take the assistance of the petitioning informer is a question which invariably must be left entirely to the discretion of the court seized of the proceedings – In exercising its jurisdiction to punish for contempt, the courts in India do keep in mind the benefit that could accrue to the petitioning informer (if he is a party to the parent proceedings out of which the contempt arises) upon implementation of the order alleged to have been wilfully disobeyed; but more than anything else, the endeavour is to uphold the majesty, dignity and prestige of the courts. [Paras 45, 46] Contempt of Courts Act – Section 20 – Civil Procedure Code – Order VII Rule 6 – Condonation of Delay in approaching the High Court for contempt – The contempt petitioner cannot choose a time convenient to him to approach the Court: Held: Even in case of a petition disclosing facts constituting contempt, which is civil in nature, the petitioner cannot choose a time convenient to him to approach the Court – The statute refers to a specific time limit of one year from the date of alleged contempt for proceedings to be initiated; meaning thereby, that the action should be brought within a year, and not beyond, irrespective of when the proceedings to punish for contempt are actually initiated by the High Court – In an appropriate case, it would be open to the party who has not petitioned the court within the period of one year, as stipulated in Section 20 of the Act, to seek exemption from the law of limitation in line with the principle flowing from Order VII Rule 6, CPC, by showing the ground upon which such exemption is claimed – Applicability of the principle underlying Order VII Rule 6, CPC for granting exemption would only be just and proper having regard to the object and purpose for which the jurisdiction to punish for contempt is exercised by the courts if, of course, the court is satisfied that benefit of such an exemption ought to be extended in a given case. [Para 55] Contempt of Courts Act – Section 20 – Limitation period for filing contempt petition – Interpretation thereof – Explained: Held: Stale claims of contempt, camouflaged as a “continuing wrong/breach/offence” ought not to be entertained, having regard to the legislative intent for introducing section 20 in the Act which has been noticed above – Contempt being a personal action directed against a particular person alleged to be in contempt, much of the efficacy of the proceedings would be lost by passage of time – Even if a contempt is committed and within the stipulated period of one year from such commission no action is brought before the court on the specious ground that the contempt has been continuing, no party should be encouraged to wait indefinitely to choose his own time to approach the court. [Para 56]
Single & Continuing cause of action – Difference explained: Held: When an act is final and complete and becomes a cause of action for injury to the plaintiff, it is single, and the plaintiff is entitled to sue, for the wrongful act – But if there is repetition of a wrongful act or omission, it will comprise a continuing cause of action – Neither do repeated breaches of continuing obligations constitute a continuing wrong nor intermittent breaches of a continuing obligation; rather there has to be present an element of continuance in both, the breach and the obligation. [Paras 74,75] Legal Maxim – Secundum allegata et probate – Court can arrive at its decision only on the basis of the claims and proof led by the parties – Even if a point of “continuing wrong/breach/offence” is traceable in the pleadings, the court ought not to accept it mechanically:
Held: The court cannot traverse beyond the pleadings and make out a case which was never pleaded, such principle having originated from the fundamental legal maxim secundum allegata et probate, i.e., the court will arrive at its decision on the basis of the claims and proof led by the parties – The assertion of the contumacious conduct being in the nature of a “continuing wrong/breach/offence” is factual and has to be borne from the pleadings on record – Law is well-settled that when a point is not traceable in the pleas set out either in a plaint or a written statement, findings rendered on such point by the court would be unsustainable as that would amount to an altogether new case being made out for the party – Even if a point of “continuing wrong/breach/offence” is traceable in the pleadings, the court ought not to accept it mechanically; particularly, in entertaining an action for contempt, which is quasi-criminal in nature, the court should be slow and circumspect and be fully satisfied that there has indeed been a “continuing wrong/breach/offence”. [Paras 71, 72]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Mukund P Unny, Hony. Associate Editor (Verified by: Shadan Farasat) I.A. No. 3/2022 in Review I.A. No. 1/2020 in LPA 1/2018 and I.A. No. 10/2022 in Review I.A. No. 3/2020 in CA No. 33/2017. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.