High Court Cannot Re-Appreciate Evidence In Writ Jurisdiction To Interfere With Fact-Finding By Civil Courts: Supreme Court

"The course adopted by the High Court resulted in a clear violation of the doctrine of audi alteram partem, which constitutes one of the foundational principles of natural justice." Supreme Court of India, in a significant ruling dated July 16, 2026, held that a High Court exercising its extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot act as an appellate court to reweigh evidence and set aside factual findings recorded by civil courts.

A bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi observed that the High Court had "transgressed the limited contours of the certiorari jurisdiction" by setting aside findings of the First Appellate Court without affording a hearing to the affected parties.

The dispute originated from a partition suit filed in 1999 concerning family properties. The Trial Court dismissed the suit, holding the properties were self-acquired by the primary defendant, who had subsequently alienated them to various purchasers. On appeal, the First Appellate Court upheld the dismissal but observed that the sale deeds executed in favour of the purchasers were invalid, concluding that the primary defendant remained the true owner in possession. Aggrieved by these specific observations, one of the purchasers filed a writ petition before the Karnataka High Court, which set aside the appellate court's findings without serving notice to the affected original owner and subsequent purchaser.

The primary question before the court was whether a writ of certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution was maintainable to challenge findings of fact adjudicated in a civil suit. The court was also called upon to determine whether the High Court erred in setting aside these findings ex parte without hearing the parties whose ownership and possessory rights were directly impacted.

Scope Of Certiorari Jurisdiction

Delving into the principles governing extraordinary writ jurisdiction, the Supreme Court emphasized that High Courts do not exercise appellate powers over subordinate courts. The bench noted that a writ of certiorari is strictly meant for correcting jurisdictional errors or patent illegalities. The court firmly reiterated that factual determinations cannot be disturbed merely because another view is reasonably possible.

Re-Appreciation Of Evidence Prohibited

Relying on established precedent, the court clarified the strict boundaries of judicial review regarding the appreciation of evidence. It stressed that the sufficiency or adequacy of evidence is the exclusive domain of the fact-finding tribunal or civil court. The bench observed that an error of law apparent on the face of the record can be corrected, but not an error of fact, however grave it may appear.

"A writ of certiorari can be issued for correcting errors of jurisdiction committed by inferior courts or tribunals : these are cases where orders are passed by inferior courts or tribunals without jurisdiction, or is in excess of it, or as a result of failure to exercise jurisdiction."

High Court Transgressed Jurisdictional Limits

Applying these principles to the present dispute, the Supreme Court found absolute fault with the Karnataka High Court's intervention. The bench observed that the First Appellate Court was fully competent to adjudicate the appeal and had arrived at its conclusions after a careful perusal of the pleadings, mutation entries, and sale deeds. The top court held that the factual findings were not rendered outside of the civil court's jurisdiction.

Trial Court Findings Cannot Be Casually Discarded

The bench concluded that the High Court improperly substituted its own views for those of the appellate court. Since the civil court had returned its findings based on oral and documentary evidence adduced during a full-fledged trial, the High Court had no basis to declare them unsupported by evidence under Article 226. The Supreme Court noted that the observations of the lower court were not returned "dehors the evidence placed on record."

Violation Of Audi Alteram Partem

Turning to the severe procedural irregularities, the Supreme Court strongly condemned the High Court's decision to dispense with the service of notice to the appellants. The bench highlighted that the appellate court's findings directly affected the ownership and possessory rights of the appellants over the suit schedule properties. Deciding the matter ex parte deprived them of a fundamental constitutional right to be heard.

"In such a circumstance, the least expectation that a litigant is entitled to have from a Court, much less a constitutional Court, is that they would be heard before being condemned."

Prejudice Caused By Ex Parte Adjudication

The court further elaborated on the concept of prejudice in the context of natural justice violations. It noted that the appellants were not merely proper parties but necessary ones for effectively adjudicating the writ petition. The bench found that undeniable prejudice was caused by the High Court's interference with their established property rights, as any adverse finding on ownership would inevitably entail severe civil consequences.

Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgment of the Karnataka High Court and restored the order passed by the First Appellate Court in its entirety. The court clarified that its judgment should not be construed as an expression of opinion on the absolute merits of the property dispute, leaving the parties at liberty to pursue available alternative legal remedies within three months.

Date of Decision: 16 July 2026