LAWS(RAJ)-2005-4-18

GURUBUX SINGH Vs. LAXMI NARAIN

Decided On April 01, 2005
GURUBUX SINGH Appellant
V/S
LAXMI NARAIN Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties.

(2.) THE petitioner/defendant sought permission to cross examine the witnesses of the plaintiff by submitting application before the Rent Tribunal, Udaipur (for short `the Tribunal' ). THE Trial Court vide order dated 03. 12. 2004 allowed cross-examination of the plaintiff and his son only and rejected the prayer to permit cross-examination of the other witnesses of the plaintiff.

(3.) IT is true that the order under challenge is discretionary order but that does not mean that the power has been given to Court of law to pass non-speaking order. Even the discretionary orders can be passed only judiciously and not arbitrary. IT is also true that the impugned order could have been challenged by filing appeal but only after the decision of the main proceedings before the Tribunal. Bar of alternate remedy is not absolute bar but is a restriction imposed by the Court upon itself. When the facts are glaring and brought to the notice of the Court for correction under the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court, then simply because the order can be challenged after the decision of the suit itself, there cannot be absolute bar for exercise of supervisory powers under Article 227. By doing so, this Court will be refusing to exercising supervisory jurisdiction wen it is needed. Otherwise also, if such type of order has come before the Court which cannot be justified even by supporting arguments of the opposite party, then there appears to be no reason for multiplying proceedings by rejecting the writ petition and directing the petitioner to raise the ground in appeal so as to further multiply proceedings by having an order of remand from the appellate Court and retrial of the entire suit. IT is true that this Court should exercise supervisory power under Article 227 in civil litigations with care and caution and this Court is directing the parties to challenge the order passed in civil proceedings in appeal but that it is not a restriction imposed upon itself to be applied in all cases.