Legal Review and Analysis of Shri Digant vs Ms PDT Trading Co & Ors 2025 INSC 1252
In-Short
Case: Shri Digant vs. M/S. P.D.T. Trading Co. & Ors. (2025 INSC 1252): The Supreme Court ruled that a High Court, in its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227, cannot interfere with a plausible appellate order absent a jurisdictional error. It distinguished a 'no instruction' pursis from a formal Vakalatnama withdrawal, emphasizing that a litigant cannot benefit from their own negligence and inaction.
1. Heading of the Judgment
Shri Digant vs. M/S. P.D.T. Trading Co. & Ors. (2025 INSC 1252)
2. Related Laws and Sections
Constitution of India: Articles 226 and 227 (Writ Jurisdiction and Supervisory Jurisdiction of High Courts).
Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999: Section 16(1)(g) and (n) (Grounds for possession) and Section 34 (Appeal).
The Advocates Act, 1961: Section 34(1) (Power of High Court to make rules).
Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960: Rule 8(4) of Chapter XXXII of Schedule VII (Procedure for an Advocate to withdraw appearance).
Civil Manual of the Bombay High Court: Clause 660(4) (Procedure for withdrawal of Vakalatnama by an Advocate).
General Clauses Act, 1897: Section 27 (Presumption as to service of letters sent by post).
3. Basic Judgment Details
Court: Supreme Court of India.
Jurisdiction: Civil Appellate Jurisdiction.
Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 13801 of 2025 (@ SLP (C) No. 5813 of 2023).
Appellant: Shri Digant.
Respondents: M/S. P.D.T. Trading Co. & Ors.
Appeal From: Order dated 30.01.2023 of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench.
Final Outcome: Appeal allowed. The High Court's order was set aside, and the decree of the Trial Court, as affirmed by the Appellate Court, was restored.
4. Core Principle and Analysis of the Judgment
The Central Issue: Procedural Fairness vs. Litigant's Inaction
The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether a Civil Court is obligated to issue a fresh notice to a party and adjourn the proceedings when their counsel files a pursis (a memorandum) stating he has "no instructions" from his client, but does not formally seek or obtain permission to withdraw the Vakalatnama (the document authorizing the counsel to appear).
Factual Matrix and Litigation History
The dispute originated from a civil suit for possession filed by the appellant under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act. The defendants (respondents) were initially set ex parte but later participated. A critical event occurred when their advocate filed a pursis (Exhibit-42) stating he had no instructions from his clients, annexing a copy of a notice he had sent to them. The Trial Court proceeded with the case, recorded the plaintiff's evidence, and decreed the suit.
First Appellate Court: The defendants appealed, arguing they were denied an opportunity to present their case. The Appellate Court dismissed the appeal. It conducted a detailed analysis, concluding that the pursis was not a formal withdrawal of the Vakalatnama as per the Civil Manual. It heavily criticized the defendants for their evasive stance regarding the receipt of the notice from their own lawyer and held that a litigant cannot benefit from their own "casualness and inaction."
High Court (Under Article 227): The High Court allowed the defendants' petition. It focused on the technical non-compliance with Clause 660(4) of the Civil Manual and Rule 8(4) of the Bombay High Court Rules, noting that the notice was not served seven days in advance. It held that the defendants were deprived of a fair opportunity and remanded the matter for a fresh trial.
The Supreme Court's Reasoning and In-Depth Analysis
A. The Limited Scope of High Court's Power under Article 227
The Supreme Court began its analysis by reiterating the well-settled law on the scope of jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, citing Radhey Shyam & Anr. v. Chhabi Nath & Ors. (2015) 5 SCC 423. It emphasized that:
Judicial orders of civil courts are not amenable to a writ of certiorari under Article 226.
The supervisory power under Article 227 is to be used sparingly to correct jurisdictional errors, not mere legal errors. It can be invoked only when a subordinate court:
Assumes a jurisdiction it does not have.
Fails to exercise a jurisdiction it does have, causing a failure of justice.
Exercises its jurisdiction in a manner that tantamounts to overstepping its limits.
B. Distinguishing 'No Instruction Pursis' from 'Withdrawal of Vakalatnama'
The Court drew a critical distinction that formed the bedrock of its judgment:
The advocate had only filed a pursis stating "no instructions." He did not file a formal application seeking the court's permission to withdraw his Vakalatnama.
Consequently, the elaborate procedure under Clause 660(4) of the Civil Manual and Rule 8(4)—which mandates a seven-day advance notice to the client for withdrawal—was never triggered. The High Court erred in applying these provisions to a situation of mere "no instructions."
The Supreme Court approved the Appellate Court's view that the pursis was merely an intimation to the court and did not constitute a withdrawal of representation.
C. Litigant's Duty and the Principle of "Actus Curiae Neminem Gravabit"
The Court strongly endorsed the principle that an act of the court shall prejudice no man. However, it clarified that this principle cannot be invoked to reward a litigant's negligence. Key factors highlighted were:
Litigant's Inaction: The suit remained pending for over three months after the pursis was filed. The defendants made no effort to contact their lawyer, inquire about the case status, or engage a new counsel.
Evasive Conduct: The defendants consistently refused to state before the Appellate Court whether they had received the notice from their lawyer. The Court inferred that this evasiveness indicated a lack of bona fides.
Dilatory Tactics: The record showed a history of the defendants delaying proceedings, having been set ex parte earlier in the suit.
Plausible View of the Appellate Court: The Supreme Court held that the Appellate Court's conclusion—that the defendants could not take advantage of their own wrong—was a plausible view based on the material on record. Interfering with such a view under Article 227 was impermissible.
Final Outcome and Supreme Court's Directions
The Supreme Court held that the High Court had exceeded its jurisdiction under Article 227. It found no jurisdictional error in the Appellate Court's well-reasoned order. The High Court substituted its own view for that of the Appellate Court, which is not the function of a supervisory court. The Supreme Court, therefore:
Allowed the appeal.
Set aside the impugned order of the High Court dated 30.01.2023.
Dismissed the Writ Petition (No. 4227 of 2021) filed before the High Court.
Restored the judgment and decree of the Trial Court, which had been affirmed by the Appellate Court.
5. Multiple Choice Questions (MCQs) Based on the Judgment
Question 1: In Shri Digant vs. M/S. P.D.T. Trading Co. & Ors., what was the Supreme Court's primary reason for holding that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution?
a) The High Court incorrectly interpreted the provisions of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act.
b) The High Court interfered with a well-reasoned appellate order that contained no jurisdictional error.
c) The High Court failed to consider the evidence led by the plaintiff in the suit.
d) The High Court did not grant adequate opportunity to the appellant to present his case.
Question 2: According to the Supreme Court's judgment, why were the procedural rules under Clause 660(4) of the Civil Manual regarding withdrawal of Vakalatnama not applicable to the facts of this case?
a) Because the defendants had already been served with summons earlier.
b) Because the advocate for the defendants had filed a 'no instruction' pursis but had not formally sought permission to withdraw the Vakalatnama.
c) Because the Trial Court had specifically permitted the advocate to withdraw from the case.
d) Because the notice period of seven days was not mandatory for rent control suits.
Blog Posts
