In Brief
A sole proprietor detained in jail challenged an ex-parte judgment passed during his incarceration in a civil suit for debt recovery. The trial court set aside the decree, finding that his detention prevented effective participation. The High Court reversed this on supervisory jurisdiction, but the Supreme Court restored the trial court's order. The Court held that supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 cannot reappreciate facts or substitute judgment where the trial court has reasonably exercised discretion considering all circumstances. Fair procedure demands that a detained party receive adequate opportunity to contest proceedings, with condonation of delay and costs as appropriate remedies rather than denial of a hearing.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.