High Court restores writ petition for hearing on merits after Supreme Court upholds decision.

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court of Calcutta's decision to recall its previous orders and restore the writ petition for a hearing on merits, emphasizing that no party should be left remediless and the respondents' grievances should be examined thoroughly. The appeal was dismissed, and the High Court was directed to expedite the hearing of the writ petition.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the review petition filed by the respondents.
2. Validity of the auction sale of the subject property.
3. Jurisdiction of the Civil Court under Section 293 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
4. Effect of the High Court of Calcutta's order dated 8th September, 1965.
5. Abuse of legal process by the respondents.
6. Consequences of the dismissal of the Title Suit No. 471 of 1985.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Maintainability of the Review Petition:
The appellants argued that the review petition filed by the respondents was not maintainable as it did not meet the principles of review jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Court referred to the principles laid down in Kamlesh Verma Vs. Mayawati and Others, emphasizing that a review is maintainable only in cases of discovery of new and important matter, mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or any other sufficient reason. The Court found that the High Court had identified an error apparent on the face of the record, thus justifying the review.

2. Validity of the Auction Sale:
The subject property was sold in an auction by the Income Tax Department in 1964. The sale was objected to by Kirodimull Lohariwala on the grounds that no leave was obtained from the High Court of Calcutta. The Chief Commissioner, Delhi, overruled the objection and confirmed the sale. However, the respondents argued that the auction was never confirmed and that V.N. Vasudeva, the auction purchaser, had taken advantage of his fiduciary relationship with Kirodimull Lohariwala. The Court noted that the High Court of Calcutta had granted liberty to the Income Tax Department to sell the property, which affected the auction sale's validity.

3. Jurisdiction of the Civil Court under Section 293 of the Income Tax Act, 1961:
The respondents contended that the civil court had no jurisdiction to deal with the matter due to the bar under Section 293 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This section prohibits suits against the revenue/income tax authority. The Court observed that this mandate was overlooked when the Single Judge of the High Court relegated the parties to address their issues in the pending civil suit before the District Judge, Delhi.

4. Effect of the High Court of Calcutta's Order Dated 8th September, 1965:
The Court examined the effect of the High Court of Calcutta's order, which granted liberty to the Income Tax Department to sell the property either by public auction or private treaty. This order was crucial in determining the validity of the auction sale held in 1964. The Court found that the High Court's order had a significant impact on the auction sale and needed to be considered in the writ proceedings.

5. Abuse of Legal Process by the Respondents:
The appellants argued that the respondents had been abusing the legal process for over 50 years by repeatedly launching litigation regarding the subject property. The Court acknowledged the prolonged litigation but emphasized the need to address the respondents' grievances on their merits to ensure justice.

6. Consequences of the Dismissal of the Title Suit No. 471 of 1985:
The Title Suit No. 471 of 1985 was dismissed due to non-service upon the main defendants. The respondents filed a writ petition seeking to declare the auction sale null and void. The Single Judge of the High Court initially dismissed the writ petition, noting that the respondents had an alternative remedy in the pending civil suit. However, the civil suit was dismissed before the judgment was pronounced. The Court found that the respondents were left without a remedy and that their contentions needed to be addressed on merits.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court of Calcutta's decision to recall its previous orders and restore the writ petition for a hearing on merits. The Court emphasized that no party should be left remediless and that the respondents' grievances should be examined thoroughly. The appeal was dismissed, and the High Court was directed to expedite the hearing of the writ petition.

---