List of Current Affairs

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

A bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih, in Madan Mohan (Dead) Through LRs. v. Thakar Dass (Dead) Thr. LRs. (2026), set aside a Punjab and Haryana High Court judgment which had, in exercise of revisional jurisdiction, reversed concurrent eviction orders passed by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority. The Court held that revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC cannot be used to correct factual errors unless they amount to a jurisdictional error, even where facts are alleged to have been concealed. 

What was the Background of Madan Mohan v. Thakar Dass (2026) Case? 

• The landlady had sought eviction of the tenant from a shop, contending that rent had not been validly tendered and that the premises were bona fide required for her son's business. 
• Both the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority, on concurrent appreciation of evidence, found in favour of the landlady and decreed eviction. 
• The tenant challenged these concurrent findings before the High Court in revision under Section 115 CPC, contending that the landlady had suppressed the existence of a third shop that was lying vacant and could serve as alternate accommodation. 
• The High Court, exercising its revisional jurisdiction, reversed the concurrent findings on the ground that the landlady had not approached the court with clean hands by failing to disclose the third shop. 
• The landlord's legal representatives appealed to the Supreme Court against the High Court's order. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

• On the scope of Section 115 CPC: The Court held that revisional jurisdiction cannot be equated with appellate jurisdiction, and that a High Court exercising revisional powers cannot reappreciate evidence or substitute its own view for that of the courts below merely because another view is possible. 
• On correction of factual errors in revision: The Court held that mere errors of fact or law cannot be corrected through revisional jurisdiction unless such errors relate to a jurisdictional defect, and that an allegation of concealment of facts does not, by itself, justify interference with concurrent findings. 
• On the third shop relied upon by the tenant: The Court noted that both the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority had already returned a concurrent finding that the third shop was being used to store waste material and was therefore not suitable alternate accommodation, and questioned what had prompted the High Court to take a contrary view on this same factual finding. 
• On the concurrent findings below: The Court held that the findings of the Rent Controller and Appellate Authority that rent had not been validly tendered and that the landlady genuinely required the premises were findings of fact that were neither perverse nor vitiated by any jurisdictional error, and therefore could not have been disturbed in revision. 
• On relief granted: The Court held that the High Court had exceeded the limited scope of its revisional jurisdiction and accordingly set aside its judgment, restoring the concurrent eviction orders passed by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority. The appeal was allowed. 

What is Section 115 of CPC? 

About: 

Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 empowers the High Court (or District Court, in specified cases) to call for and examine the record of a case decided by a subordinate court, with a view to correcting jurisdictional errors where no appeal lies against the decision. 

Text of the Provision: 

• Sub-section (1): The High Court, in original suits or proceedings valued above ₹5 lakh, and the District Court, in other cases, may call for the record of any case decided by a subordinate court where no appeal lies, if that court has: (a) exercised jurisdiction not vested in it by law; (b) failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested; or (c) acted illegally or with material irregularity in exercising its jurisdiction. The proviso reserves exclusive competence to the High Court for revisions in District Court decisions of any valuation. 
• Sub-section (2): Neither Court can vary or reverse an interlocutory order in revision unless that order, had it been passed in favour of the applicant, would have finally disposed of the suit or proceeding. 
• Sub-section (3): A revision does not operate as a stay of proceedings unless the High Court or District Court specifically stays them. 
• Explanation: "Any case which has been decided" includes an order deciding an issue in the course of a suit or proceeding. 

Object of Revisional Power: 

• Enables an aggrieved party to seek rectification of a non-appealable order. 
• Allows the High Court to exercise its superintending and visitorial powers effectively. 
• Restrains subordinate courts from acting arbitrarily, illegally, or irregularly within their jurisdiction. 

Scope of Revisional Power: 

• Confined to keeping subordinate courts within the bounds of their jurisdiction. 
• Does not require or permit the High Court to reappreciate evidence on merits. 
• Not available against errors of law or fact that do not involve a question of jurisdiction. 
• Also available where a subordinate court has failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it. 
• Discretionary in nature, and limited strictly to jurisdictional errors. 
• Can be exercised by the High Court suo motu. 
• The High Court is not bound to interfere except in aid of justice. 
• Applies only where no appeal lies against the decision. 

Source: Andhra Pradesh High Court 

Why in News? 

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Ravi Cheemalapati, in Sanaka Murali v. Uddangi Ramanjaneyulu & Anr. (2026), declined to interfere with pending tenancy proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution, holding that supervisory jurisdiction cannot ordinarily be exercised where an effective alternative remedy exists, and that factual questions such as the timing of a landlord-tenant relationship must be decided by the competent Tenancy Tribunal. 

What was the Background of Sanaka Murali v.  Uddangi  Ramanjaneyulu  (2026) Case? 

• A tenant had instituted proceedings before the Tenancy Tribunal under the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act, 1956, seeking a declaration that he was the cultivating tenant of certain agricultural land, along with a permanent injunction against the landlord. An interim injunction had also been granted in his favour. 
• The petitioner, a third party claiming independent rights over the disputed land, was not a party to these tenancy proceedings. 
• The petitioner challenged the very numbering and maintainability of the tenancy case, contending that since the 1956 Act had been repealed by the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Tenancy Repeal Act, 2022, the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to entertain any proceedings under the repealed enactment. 
• He accordingly sought to have the tenancy proceedings set aside by invoking the High Court's supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. 
• The respondents opposed the revision on the ground that the petitioner, not being a party to the proceedings, lacked locus to invoke Article 227, and that he ought first to seek impleadment before the Tribunal and thereafter avail remedies under the CPC, including an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, rather than approach the High Court directly. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

• On the scope of Article 227 jurisdiction: The Court held that supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is to be exercised sparingly and ordinarily cannot be invoked where an effective alternative remedy, such as Order VII Rule 11 CPC, is available to the parties. 
• On self-imposed restraint: The Court observed that the High Court, while exercising supervisory jurisdiction, is not meant to displace a specific statutory remedy or provision of law and become a substitute for the court or tribunal below; it is a legally sound exercise of discretion for the High Court to insist that the aggrieved party first take recourse to the statutory remedy available. 
• On the effect of the repeal: The Court noted that although the Tenancy Act stood repealed, the repeal clause preserved the previous operation of the Act and actions already taken under it. 
• On the factual nature of the dispute: The Court held that whether the landlord-tenant relationship arose before or after the repeal required examination of disputed facts, including the nature and commencement of the lease, and that such factual questions could only be adjudicated by the Tenancy Tribunal and not in proceedings under Article 227. 
• On relief granted: The Court dismissed the civil revision petition, leaving it open to the petitioner to pursue appropriate remedies before the competent Tribunal in accordance with law, and clarified that the Tribunal should decide any such applications independently, uninfluenced by the High Court's observations. 

What is Article 227 of the Constitution of India? 

• Article 227 of the COI provides for the power of the High Court of Superintendence.  
• Every High Court has supervisory power over all courts and tribunals within its territorial jurisdiction.  
• The High Court can:  
  • Request reports from lower courts  
  • Make rules and create forms to regulate how these courts operate  
  • Decide how records and accounts should be kept by court officers  
• The High Court can also establish fee schedules for court officials, attorneys, advocates, and pleaders who work in these courts.  
• Any rules, forms, or fee schedules created by the High Court:  
  • Must not conflict with existing laws  
  • Need the Governor's approval before implementation  
• This supervisory power does not extend to military courts or tribunals established under laws related to the Armed Forces.  
• In simple terms, Article 227 gives High Courts the authority to oversee and regulate the functioning of all lower courts in their region, except for military courts.