SC Observed That Pure Question Of Law Can Be Raised For The First Time In SLP

PREVIOUS JUDGEMENTS

• While the case was being heard in the Trial Court, it rejected the defendant's objection regarding the lack of jurisdiction of the Trial Court, and dismissed the suit.
• The High Court, in the other hand, reversed the judgement of the Trial Court and allowed the appeal made by the plaintiff.
• The Court held the auction conducted by Moradabad Development Authority with respect to the land in dispute to be null and void.
• The High Court did not consider the question of jurisdiction because he did not file a cross-objection against this finding of the Trial Court on the exercise of its jurisdiction.

THE APPEAL MADE

• Saurav Jain, the defendant- auction purchaser who purchased the suit land from the MDA, approached the Apex Court in appeal.
• In his appeal, he contended thatthe jurisdiction of the civil court is intentionally excluded under the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976.
• He also referred to the Order XLI Rule 22 of the CPC, and contended that it was a party in whose favour the civil court has decreed a suit, thus, they can raise arguments against findings without having to file a cross- objection.

OBSERVATIONS MADE BY THE COURT

• The Courtobserved that a party in whose favour a court has decreed the suit is eligible to challenge an adverse finding before the appellate court without filing a cross objection.
• It further said that for the first time, it can allow new grounds to be raised in an appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution if it involves a question of law which does not require adducing additional evidence.

APPLICABILITY OF ORDER XLI RULE 22 CPC

• The Bench took into account the history and scope of Order XLI Rule 22 CPC as well as looked over the applicability of the principle therein to proceedings before the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution.
• Justices DY Chandrachud and MR Shah commented that the principle in Order XLI Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure furthers the cause of justice and provides the party, other than the 'aggrieved party' to raise any adverse findings against them.
• Thus this Court can draw colour from it and permit objections to the findings.
• The Bench observed that the principle, as stipulated in Order XLI Rule 22 of CPC, can be applied to petitions under Article 136 of the Constitution because of the wide powers of the Court to do justice under Article 142 of the Constitution.
• While disposing the appeal, the Bench held that although the appellant did not assail the finding of the Trial Court on the issue of jurisdiction before the High Court under Order XLI Rule 22 CPC either by filing a memorandum of cross-objection or otherwise, he cannot be precluded from raising the argument before this Court.

REFERRED JUDGEMENTS

• The Bench referred to the judgement of Ramanbhai Ashabhai Patel v. Dabhi Ajitkumar Fulsinji regarding the applicability of Order XLI Rule 22 CPC to an appeal under Article 136.
• In this case, the Constitutional Bench had held that the provisions of Order XLI Rule 22 of the CPC are not applicable to the Supreme Court.
• However, they said that this deficiency must be supplemented by drawing from the CPC.
• The Bench referred to the judgement of P.M.A. Metropolitan v. Moran Mar Marthoma regarding the jurisdiction of the Courts, as raised by the appellant.
• It held that, the plea of a bar or lack of jurisdiction can be allowed at any stage.

WHAT ARE YOUR VIEWS ABOUT THIS?