In a major ruling, the Supreme Court on 18 November 2025 set aside a Bombay High Court order that had remanded an eviction suit for fresh consideration, holding that the High Court exceeded its limited supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. The case arose from a tenancy dispute under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, where the defendants claimed they were denied an opportunity to lead evidence after their lawyer filed a “no-instructions” pursis. Restoring the Trial Court’s decree and the Appellate Court’s affirmation, the Supreme Court held that the counsel had never withdrawn his vakalatnama, the mandatory procedure for withdrawal under Clause 660(4) of the Civil Manual and Rule 8(4) of the 1960 Rules was never invoked, and the defendants—who remained inactive for over three months—could not take advantage of their own negligence. Emphasising that Article 227 is meant only to correct jurisdictional errors and not to reassess factual findings, the Court ruled that the High Court’s interference was “misconceived” and reinstated the decree in favour of the landlord.
Shri Digant v. P.D.T. Trading Co. & Ors., 18-11-2025