Article 227 Petitions in the Delhi High Court Against Trial Court Orders

Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure allows the High Court to revise an order of a subordinate court for an error of jurisdiction. But the proviso added by the 1999 amendment, in force from 1 July 2002, bars revision of an order made in the course of a suit unless the order, had it been made in favour of the applicant, would have finally disposed of the suit. An order rejecting an amendment, refusing to recall a witness or declining to frame an additional issue does not pass that test, so revision is not available against it.

Commercial suits have an express bar: section 8 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 says no revision lies against any interlocutory order of a commercial court. The Delhi High Court has held that Article 227 survives that bar, but is to be used very sparingly against commercial courts, so as not to defeat the Act's purpose of speed.

The leading statement of principles is Shalini Shyam Shetty v. Rajendra Shankar Patil (2010). The power is supervisory, not appellate. The High Court keeps subordinate courts within the bounds of their authority and does not correct every error of fact or law. In Garment Craft v. Prakash Chand Goel (2022) the Supreme Court again set aside a High Court order that had re-appreciated evidence under Article 227.

In practice, the High Court tends to interfere where:

• the trial court has acted without jurisdiction or refused to exercise a jurisdiction it has;
• the order ignores a binding statutory provision or a binding judgment;
• a party has been denied a fair hearing, for example by closing its evidence without notice;
• the error, if left alone, would cause grave and irreparable injustice that cannot be corrected in an appeal from the final decree.

Where an appeal lies, the High Court will usually send the party to it. In Virudhunagar Hindu Nadargal Dharma Paribalana Sabai v. Tuticorin Educational Society (2019) the Supreme Court said a petition under Article 227 should not be entertained against an order appealable under Order XLIII CPC, such as an order granting or refusing a temporary injunction.

1. 1.Obtain a certified copy of the impugned order and of the pleadings and applications it decided; the High Court decides on the record as it stood before the trial court.
2. 2.Frame the petition around the jurisdictional error, not around the facts. A petition that reads like an appeal is usually dismissed at the first hearing.
3. 3.File promptly. No limitation period is prescribed, but unexplained delay is a ground for refusal, and the suit continues meanwhile.
4. 4.Ask for interim relief, such as a stay of further proceedings or of the effect of the order, if the trial would otherwise move past the stage in question.
5. 5.Keep the trial court informed. A pending petition does not stay the suit unless the High Court says so.

Many of these petitions arise from suits at Rohini. The chambers works from both the Rohini Court Complex and the High Court, so the record and the argument move together. On the criminal side, interlocutory orders are challenged differently, mostly by petitions under section 528 BNSS; see criminal matters in the Delhi High Court.