Supreme Court Restores Trial and Appellate Decisions, Holds High Court Exceeded Jurisdiction in Remand Over Counsel’s “No Instructions” Note

A bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Joymalya Bagchi heard an appeal challenging a Bombay High Court order that set aside a trial and appellate court decree in a possession suit and remanded the matter to the Small Causes Court. The discrete issue before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court, in exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Articles 226/227, could interfere with concurrent findings that a trial court rightly proceeded after an advocate filed a pursis stating he had “no instructions.”

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, held that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction, and restored the orders of the trial and appellate courts. The Court emphasised that “power under Article 227 is intended to be used sparingly and only in appropriate cases.” The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “In the case on hand, the appellate court had considered in detail the issue as to whether the trial court was justified in proceeding with the case, without further notice to the defendants, after submission of pursis (Exh.42) by defendants’ counsel, claiming no instructions. After a threadbare analysis and taking into consideration the surrounding circumstances, the appellate court held that the trial court committed no wrong in proceeding with the matter. The appellate court noticed that the advocate representing the defendants had claimed no instructions but not sought withdrawal of his Vakalatnama and the matter thereafter remained pending for over three months till it was decided in March 2015. In between no effort was made by the defendants to engage another lawyer. Moreover, the defendants did not come up with a case that their lawyer’s notice was not served on them therefore, they could not engage another counsel. Besides that, the record also indicated that the intention of the defendants was to delay the proceedings because earlier also the suit had proceeded ex parte against them though, later, those orders were recalled. Therefore, in our view, once the appellate court took into consideration all relevant aspects including the fact that pursis (Exh.42) did not seek withdrawal of the Vakalatnama, and withdrawal was not even permitted, there was no such jurisdictional error which warranted exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The High Court without any justification went on to consider the procedure prescribed for withdrawal of Vakalatnama when neither withdrawal of Vakalatnama was permitted by the Trial Court nor the pursis prayed for its withdrawal. In such circumstances, the entire exercise of the High Court was misconceived. More so, when the view taken by the appellate court that defendant cannot take advantage of his own wrong was a plausible view based on materials available on record. Hence, in our view, appellate court’s order was not amenable to interference in exercise of jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution.”

Background The dispute arose from Civil Suit No. 85 of 2014 filed by the appellant seeking possession under Sections 16(1)(g) and (n) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. Summons were served and the defendants were initially proceeded against ex parte; later those orders were recalled and defendants filed written statements. During trial the defendants’ advocate filed a pursis (Exh.42) stating he had “not been provided instructions” and enclosed an intimation/letter sent by RPAD. The trial court recorded the plaintiff’s evidence and decreed the suit on March 4, 2015. Defendants’ appeal under Section 34 was dismissed by the appellate court which, after detailed analysis, held that the note did not amount to withdrawal of vakalatnama and that defendants had been evasive about whether they had received the RPAD intimation.

The defendants then filed a writ petition under Articles 226/227 before the Bombay High Court which found a breach of Clause 660(4) of the Civil Manual and Rule 8(4) of the Appellate Side Rules (requiring seven days’ advance notice to a client before withdrawal) and remanded the matter to the trial court, concluding the defendants were deprived of opportunity to lead evidence. The Supreme Court reviewed the scope of supervisory jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 (citing Radhey Shyam v. Chhabi Nath), held that the appellate court’s view was plausible on record, and concluded the High Court “clearly exceeded its jurisdiction” by entertaining the limited point raised. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court order dated 30.01.2023, dismissed Writ Petition No. 4227 of 2021, restored the trial and appellate decisions, and directed parties to bear their own costs. No interim directions were issued.

Case Details: Case No.: Civil Appeal No. 13801/2025 @ SLP (C) No. 5813/2023; Reporter citation: 2025 INSC 1352 Case Title: SHRI DIGANT v. M/s P.D.T. TRADING CO. & Ors. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): (Advocate names not specified in the record) For the Respondent(s): Shri S. S. Sitani (Advocate) (referenced in the record)