Trial court’s apparent factual error warrants quashing and fresh adjudication of the legal-representative application.

The petitioners invoked Article 227 of the Constitution challenging the order dated 28 February 2022 passed by the 15th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Surat, below Exhibit 235 in Regular Civil Suit No. 507 of 2001.

By that application, the petitioners sought to be substituted as the legal representatives of deceased original defendant No. 3, Babubhai Lalabhai Patel.

They contended that they had produced the deceased’s Will and death certificate along with the application, but the Trial Court rejected the application on the erroneous premise that those documents had not been produced.

The respondents did not dispute that copies of the Will and death certificate had been filed with the application.

Whether the Trial Court committed an apparent error of record in rejecting the petitioners’ application below Exhibit 235 on the ground that the Will and death certificate of deceased defendant No. 3 had not been produced?

Whether the impugned order should be quashed and the application below Exhibit 235 restored for fresh adjudication by the Trial Court?

The Court exercised its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to correct an apparent error committed by a subordinate court and to ensure proper adjudication.

The Court observed that, although the petitioners could have approached the Trial Court by way of review to point out an error apparent on the face of the record, the High Court could nevertheless remand the matter after noticing such error.

The Court applied the procedural principle that an order materially based on an incorrect recording of the facts should be set aside and the underlying application reconsidered afresh, without prejudicing the parties’ substantive rights.

The Trial Court’s rejection of Exhibit 235 was founded, at least in part, on its recording that the petitioners had not produced the Will and death certificate.

The High Court found this recording prima facie incorrect because those documents had in fact been filed with the application, a fact that the respondents were unable to dispute.

Since the factual error had resulted in rejection of the petitioners’ application, the High Court considered the order unsustainable.

Rather than deciding the merits of the petitioners’ claim to be substituted as legal representatives, the Court remanded the matter so that the Trial Court could reconsider Exhibit 235 after hearing all parties.

The Court expressly kept the parties’ rights and contentions open for fresh determination.

It quashed and set aside the Trial Court’s order dated 28 February 2022 passed below Exhibit 235 and restored the application to its original file.

The Trial Court was directed to decide the application afresh after hearing the parties, with all rights and contentions kept open.

The Court clarified that it had not adjudicated the merits of the substitution claim.

Any interim relief previously granted was vacated; the connected Civil Application for stay was disposed of as having become infructuous, with no order as to costs.