In Brief
A plaintiff sued for specific performance of an agreement to sell; the Trial Court passed an ex-parte judgment in 2012. The defendants challenged this after very long delays (1522 and 2345 days). The Trial Court refused to condone these delays. The High Court, exercising Article 227 powers, set aside the ex-parte judgment. The Supreme Court allowed the plaintiff's appeal, holding that the High Court erred by entertaining a revision petition under Article 227 when a statutory appeal remedy was available under the Code of Civil Procedure. The Court emphasised that supervisory jurisdiction should not be used to bypass available appellate remedies in civil matters.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.