Article 227 supervisory restraint limits interference with ex parte decrees when statutory appeal and delay questions remain unresolved.

The existence of a statutory appeal under the Code of Civil Procedure restrained the High Court from entertaining Article 227 petitions against an ex parte decree, and it should not have proceeded as though sitting in appeal. The High Court also erred in setting aside the decree without first addressing the Trial Court's refusal to condone delays of 1522 and 2345 days in filing Order IX Rule 13 applications, because delay was a threshold issue affecting maintainability and relief. The common judgment was held unsustainable, and the Trial Court's ex parte decree and delay-refusal orders were restored.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the High Court ought to have entertained revision petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against an ex parte decree when a statutory remedy of appeal under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was available. (ii) Whether the High Court could set aside the ex parte decree without dealing with the Trial Court's refusal to condone the huge delays in filing the applications under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Issue (i): Whether the High Court ought to have entertained revision petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against an ex parte decree when a statutory remedy of appeal under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was available.

Analysis: Where proceedings arise under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and a civil court has passed the decree, the availability of an appellate remedy under the Code operates as a strong restraint on the High Court's supervisory jurisdiction. The existence of a specific remedy of appeal against an ex parte decree meant that the High Court should not have entertained the revision petitions under Article 227 and proceeded to examine the decree as though sitting in appeal.

Conclusion: The revision petitions ought not to have been entertained under Article 227 against the ex parte decree.

Issue (ii): Whether the High Court could set aside the ex parte decree without dealing with the Trial Court's refusal to condone the huge delays in filing the applications under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Analysis: The Trial Court had refused to condone delays of 1522 days and 2345 days in filing the applications to set aside the ex parte decree. The High Court did not examine whether those refusals were justified and instead set aside the ex parte decree on merits. That course bypassed the threshold question of delay and ignored a material jurisdictional and procedural aspect directly bearing on maintainability and relief.

Conclusion: The High Court could not validly set aside the ex parte decree without first addressing the refusal to condone delay.

Final Conclusion: The impugned common judgment of the High Court was unsustainable and was set aside, resulting in restoration of the Trial Court's ex parte decree and the orders refusing condonation of delay.

Ratio Decidendi: In civil court proceedings, the existence of a specific statutory appellate remedy under the Code of Civil Procedure ordinarily deters the High Court from exercising Article 227 supervisory jurisdiction, especially where the challenge is to an ex parte decree and the threshold issue of delay has not been adjudicated.

---