J AND K COOPERATIVE HOUSING CORPORATION LTD. TH. VIRINDER SINGH vs GUNWANT SINGH
- Court
- Jammu and Kashmir High Court
COURT OF JAMMU & KASH
HMIR AND LADAKH
HIGH
AT JAMMU
CM(M) No.186/2026
Reserved on: 07.09.2026
Pronounced on: 11.09.2026
Uploaded on: 14.09.2026
Whether the operative part or
full judgment is pronounced: Full
J&K Cooperativ
(Through its Ma
Sing, age 54 yea
having its Regis
Plot, Jammu.
ve Housing Corporation Ltd.
anaging Director Virinder
….Petitioner(s)/Appellant(s)
ars, S/o Charanjeet Singh,
stered Office at 243, New
Through :- Mr. Jasbir Singh J
Jasrotia, Advocate
V/s
Gunwant Singh,
R/o Major Ragh
Sidhra Jammu.
, S/o Late Khajur Singh
hunath Singh Marg,
….Respondent(s)
Through :- None
N’BLE MR. JUSTICE WASIM
Coram: HON
M SADIQ NARGAL, JUDGE
JUDGMENT
oner, by way of the instant petiti
01. The petitio
ion preferred under Article 227 o
of
the Constitution
of India, seeks quashing of the o
order dated 07.08.2026 passed b
y
the learned Sp
pecial Mobile Magistrate (Ele
ectricity), Jammu, whereby th
he
applications filed
d by the petitioner seeking condon
nation of delay and setting aside o
of
the ex parte proc
ceedings initiated against it on 15.0
03.2022 came to be dismissed.
02. Learned c
counsel appearing for the petition
ner submits that the petitioner ha
ad
engaged Advoca
ate Mustafa Bhatti to contest the p
proceedings before the learned tria
al
Court and that
the said counsel had filed his
s Vakalatnama on behalf of th
he
petitioner, namel
ly, J&K Cooperative Housing Cor
rporation Ltd., on 23.03.2021. It i
is
contended that, o
on account of a lack of commun
nication and effective coordinatio
n
2 CM(M) No.186/2026
with the said counsel, the written statement could not be filed within the prescribed
period, resulting in the closure of the petitioner's right to file the written statement
vide order dated 20.09.2021. Subsequently, on 15.03.2022, the learned trial Court
proceeded ex parte against the petitioner.
03. It is the specific case of the petitioner that the circumstances leading to its
non-appearance and the delay in approaching the Court were duly explained in the
applications filed before the learned trial Court. The petitioner stated that, on
10.12.2024, while reviewing the pending litigation during a meeting concerning the
status of various cases, it was noticed that no record pertaining to the instant
proceedings was available in the relevant file. Thereafter, the concerned counsel
was contacted, who, upon being apprised of the matter, expressed ignorance
regarding the proceedings.
04. Upon further verification, the petitioner, for the first time, came to know on
19.12.2024 about the closure of its right to file the written statement and the
subsequent initiation of ex parte proceedings against it. Thereafter, the petitioner
claims to have acted with due promptitude by applying for certified copies of the
order dated 15.03.2022, which were received on 31.12.2024. Subsequently, on
18.01.2025, the petitioner filed applications seeking condonation of delay and
setting aside of the ex parte proceedings under Order IX Rule 7 of the Code of Civil
Procedure. However, the learned trial Court, without appreciating the circumstances
pleaded by the petitioner, dismissed both the applications vide order dated
07.08.2026, which order is assailed in the present petition.
05. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the learned trial Court
failed to appreciate the settled principle of law that Courts are required to advance
substantial justice rather than defeat the same on account of procedural hyper-
3 CM(M) No.186/2026
technicalities. It is contended that refusal to permit the petitioner to participate in the
proceedings would result in serious prejudice and occasion a miscarriage of justice.
It is further argued that the learned trial Court itself noticed that no specific period
of limitation is prescribed for an application under Order IX Rule 7 CPC prior to the
pronouncement of the final judgment. Nevertheless, according to learned counsel,
the Court proceeded to reject the application without properly appreciating the
explanation furnished by the petitioner for the delay.
06. Learned counsel submits that the conduct of the petitioner was bona fide,
particularly in view of the circumstances in which it acquired knowledge of the
proceedings, the nature and value of the property involved, and the prejudice that
would be caused to the petitioner if the impugned order is permitted to stand. On
these grounds, learned counsel seeks interference by this Court in exercise of its
supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
07. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner
and have also perused the record, including the order impugned herein, passed by
the learned trial Court.
08. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the learned trial Court was
conscious of the fact that no specific period of limitation is prescribed for filing an
application under Order IX Rule 7 CPC before the conclusion of the proceedings.
However, the absence of a prescribed period of limitation does not absolve a party
seeking recall of ex parte proceedings from demonstrating sufficient and cogent
cause for its absence and explaining the delay in approaching the Court. In the
present case, the record indicates that Advocate Mustafa Bhatti had entered
appearance on behalf of the petitioner by filing a Vakalatnama on 23.03.2021.
Despite the same, the written statement was not filed on the dates fixed for the said
4 CM(M) No.186/2026
purpose, i.e, 22.04.2021, 17.05.2021, 28.06.2021, 28.02.2021 and 14.08.2021.
Ultimately, on 20.09.2021, the right of the defendant/petitioner to file the written
statement was closed in the presence of the concerned counsel.
09. The record further reveals that thereafter, the counsel appearing on behalf of
the petitioner participated in the proceedings on subsequent dates, but remained
absent on 26.11.2021, 11.12.2021, 29.12.2021, 29.01.2022 and 26.02.2022.
Ultimately, on 15.03.2022, the learned trial Court proceeded ex parte against the
petitioner. Thus, the material available on record demonstrates that the petitioner
remained inactive for a considerable period and failed to take effective steps for
defending the proceedings.
10. The application seeking setting aside of the ex parte proceedings was filed on
18.01.2025, i.e., after a lapse of almost three years from the date on which the ex
parte proceedings were initiated. Merely because no specific period of limitation
has been prescribed for an application under Order IX Rule 7 CPC, it cannot be
construed to mean that a party is entitled to approach the Court at any time of its
choice without satisfactorily explaining the prolonged delay and its continued
absence from the proceedings. The applicant is required to establish sufficient cause
and bona fide conduct warranting the exercise of judicial discretion in its favour.
11. The learned trial Court, upon consideration of the entire record, has recorded
a categorical finding regarding the conduct of the petitioner, particularly its failure
to file the written statement despite repeated opportunities and its subsequent failure
to diligently participate in the proceedings. The explanation sought to be furnished
by the petitioner by attributing the lapse to the conduct of its counsel has not found
favour with the learned trial Court.
5 CM(M) No.186/2026
12. This Court, in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, does not ordinarily interfere with a discretionary order of a
subordinate Court unless the order suffers from patent illegality, jurisdictional error,
perversity, or a manifest failure to exercise jurisdiction vested in the Court. Having
considered the impugned order in the aforesaid backdrop, this Court finds no
perversity, illegality, or jurisdictional infirmity in the findings recorded by the
learned trial Court warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India. The findings recorded by the learned trial Court are based upon the material
available on record and cannot be said to be either arbitrary or perverse.
13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in ‘Garment Craft (S) v. Prakash Chand Goel
(S)’, 2022 INSC 37 , while explaining the scope of supervisory jurisdiction under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India, held as under:
“15. ….The High Court exercising supervisory jurisdiction does not
act as a court of first appeal to reappreciate, reweigh the evidence or
facts upon which the determination under challenge is based.
Supervisory jurisdiction is not to correct every error of fact or even a
legal flaw when the final finding is justified or can be supported. The
High Court is not to substitute its own decision on facts and
conclusion, for that of the inferior court or tribunal. The jurisdiction
exercised is in the nature of correctional jurisdiction to set right grave
dereliction of duty or flagrant abuse violation of fundamental
principles of law or justice. The power under Article 227 is exercised
sparingly in appropriate cases, like when there is no evidence at all to
justify, or the finding is so perverse that no reasonable person can
possibly come to such a conclusion that the court or tribunal has come
to. It is axiomatic that such discretionary relief must be exercised to
ensure there is no miscarriage of justice.
16. Explaining the scope of jurisdiction under Article 227 , this Court
in Estralla Rubber v. Dass Estate (P) Ltd. (2001) 8 SCC 97 has
observed:-
6 CM(M) No.186/2026
“6. The scope and ambit of exercise of power and jurisdiction
by a High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India
is examined and explained in a number of decisions of this
Court. The exercise of power under this article involves a duty
on the High Court to keep inferior courts and tribunals within
the bounds of their authority and to see that they do the duty
expected or required of them in a legal manner. The High
Court is not vested with any unlimited prerogative to correct
all kinds of hardship or wrong decisions made within the limits
of the jurisdiction of the subordinate courts or tribunals.
Exercise of this power and interfering with the orders of the
courts or tribunals is restricted to cases of serious dereliction of
duty and flagrant violation of fundamental principles of law or
justice, where if the High Court does not interfere, a grave
injustice remains uncorrected. It is also well settled that the
High Court while acting under this article cannot exercise its
power as an appellate court or substitute its own judgment in
place of that of the subordinate court to correct an error, which
is not apparent on the face of the record. The High Court can
set aside or ignore the findings of facts of an inferior court or
tribunal, if there is no evidence at all to justify or the finding is
so perverse, that no reasonable person can possibly come to
such a conclusion, which the court or tribunal has come to.”
14. Tested on the touchstone of the aforesaid principles, this Court finds no
patent illegality, perversity, jurisdictional error or manifest failure of justice in
the order passed by the learned trial Court. The conclusions recorded therein are
founded upon the chronology of events and the material available on record.
Merely because another view may possibly be taken on the explanation offered
by the petitioner would not justify interference in exercise of supervisory
jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
7 CM(M) No.186/2026
15. The petitioner has, therefore, failed to make out any case warranting interference
with the impugned order dated 07.08.2026. The present petition is accordingly found
to be devoid of merit and is dismissed along with connected application(s).
(Wasim Sadiq Nargal)
Judge
Jammu:
11.09.2026
Shammi
Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No
Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No