Alternate Judge's Review Order Overturned Due to Procedural Violations
In a significant ruling, the Bombay High Court has overturned a review order passed by an alternate judge in a commercial dispute involving Advanced Technology Products Inc. and Oriental Export Corporation. The court found that the alternate judge violated procedural norms by hearing the review application when the original judge, who had issued the order under review, was available.
The case revolves around a dispute where Advanced Technology Products Inc., based in Ohio, alleged quality defects in products supplied by Oriental Export Corporation. In response, Oriental Export Corporation filed a commercial suit without complying with the mandatory pre-institution mediation under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The City Civil Court, Dindoshi, initially rejected the registration of the suit, but an alternate judge later set aside this order, allowing the suit to proceed without mediation.
The Bombay High Court, presided over by Justices R.I. Chagla and Advait M. Sethna, found that the alternate judge's actions contravened Order XLVII Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. This rule stipulates that a review application must be heard by the judge who issued the original order if they are available within two months. The original judge in this case was on a two-week leave, and thus available to hear the review upon return, making the alternate judge's intervention improper.
Furthermore, the court emphasized that the power of review cannot be mistaken for appellate power, which allows for correcting errors. The alternate judge's order was criticized for treating the review application like an appeal, lacking grounds for review, and failing to provide reasoning for setting aside the original order.
This decision underscores the importance of adhering to procedural rules in judicial processes and delineates the boundaries between review and appellate powers. The court's ruling restores the original order, maintaining the requirement for pre-institution mediation in the commercial suit.
Bottom Line:
Review application under CPC Order XLVII Rule 5 - Alternate Judge cannot hear the review application if the Judge who passed the original order is available within two months. Review application treated like an appeal and inappropriate correction of alleged errors recorded in the original order found impermissible.
Statutory provision(s): Order XLVII Rule 5, Order XLVII Rule 4(2)(a), Civil Procedure Code, 1908; Section 12A, Commercial Courts Act, 2015
