https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=301452 Supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 cannot be used to bypass an available appellate remedy or to reopen an eviction matter after the decree has been executed and possession delivered under Order 21 Rule 35 CPC. Where the impugned orders were appealable, the tenant had not exhausted that remedy, and no subsisting lis remained after satisfaction of the decree, the High Court could not act as an original fact-finding court, direct allowance of pending applications, or compel a de novo trial. The High Court's interference was therefore unjustified and without jurisdiction, and the writ petition ought not to have been entertained. en-us Mon, 17 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 11 Jul 2023 17:23:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=301452 Supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 cannot be used to bypass an available appellate remedy or to reopen an eviction matter after the decree has been executed and possession delivered under Order 21 Rule 35 CPC. Where the impugned orders were appealable, the tenant had not exhausted that remedy, and no subsisting lis remained after satisfaction of the decree, the High Court could not act as an original fact-finding court, direct allowance of pending applications, or compel a de novo trial. The High Court's interference was therefore unjustified and without jurisdiction, and the writ petition ought not to have been entertained. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 17 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=301452