https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313850 The SC set aside the HC's order that had interfered with a trial court's decision under Article 227. The HC had incorrectly overturned the trial court's order allowing an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC to set aside an ex-parte decree. The appellant, who was detained/incarcerated, had been prevented from leading defense evidence. The SC held that the HC exceeded its supervisory jurisdiction by reappreciating facts and substituting its own decision. The HC's supervisory power should only correct grave dereliction or flagrant abuse, not every error. The trial court's discretion in granting relief to the detained appellant was justified and not perverse. The SC restored the trial court's order setting aside the ex-parte decree and allowed the appeal. en-us Tue, 11 Jan 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 03 May 2024 20:09:33 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313850 The SC set aside the HC's order that had interfered with a trial court's decision under Article 227. The HC had incorrectly overturned the trial court's order allowing an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC to set aside an ex-parte decree. The appellant, who was detained/incarcerated, had been prevented from leading defense evidence. The SC held that the HC exceeded its supervisory jurisdiction by reappreciating facts and substituting its own decision. The HC's supervisory power should only correct grave dereliction or flagrant abuse, not every error. The trial court's discretion in granting relief to the detained appellant was justified and not perverse. The SC restored the trial court's order setting aside the ex-parte decree and allowed the appeal. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 11 Jan 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313850