Court No. - 18
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 6043 of 2018 Petitioner :- Balveer Singh Respondent :- Gyana Devi And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Lakshman Singh,Santosh Kumar Pandey
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Supplementary Affidavit filed today be taken on record.
Petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated 20.12.2017 passed by the Additional Civil Judge/F.T.C-I, Jalaun at Orai in Civil Revision no.22/2018 (Balveer Singh vs. Gyana Devi and others) related to execution Suit no.3 of 2001 (Gyana Devi vs. Balveer Singh and others) as well as order dated 19.02.2015 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Jalaun at Orai on the Application of the petitioner 24Ga(2) under Section Order XXI Rule 29 CPC.
Record in question reflects that the first respondent-Gyana Devi w/o Hari Singh had filed Original Suit no.70/1985 (Gyana Devi and others vs. Rani Bahu and others) for permanent injunction. It is claimed that the same was decreed on the basis of compromise on 04.07.2001. The first respondent had filed an Execution Case no.03/2001 (Smt. Gyana Devi and others vs. Balveer Singh and others). During the pendency of the aforesaid execution case, the son of petitioner namely Raj Kumar Singh had filed Original Suit no.96/2009 (Raj Kumar Singh vs. Gyana Devi) on 10.07.2009 for permanent injunction. Meanwhile, the petitioner has moved an application under Order XXI Rule 29 CPC in the execution proceeding with a request that during the pendency of proceeding of Suit no.96/2009, the execution proceeding may be stayed. The same was objected by Smt. Gyana Devi and finally the said application was rejected by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jalaun vide order dated 19.02.2015, against which the petitioner had preferred Civil Revision no.22/2015 (Balveer Singh vs. Gyana Devi and others) and the same was also dismissed by the Revisional Court vide order dated 20.12.2017. While passing the order impugned, the Revisional Court has categorically proceeded to observe that the said application was moved by the petitioner just to delay the execution proceeding and moreover the Original Suit no.96/2009 has been preferred on behalf of son of petitioner and not by the petitioner- revisionist and as such, the application under Order XXI Rule 29 CPC on his behalf is not maintainable. The Revisional Court has also proceeded to place reliance on the judgement passed by this Court in Musammat Hasimi @ Batul vs. Ali Ahmad and others 2015 (109) ALR 284 Allahabad.
Learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out any manifest error apparent on the face of record in the impugned orders so as to justify interference by this Court in extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Both the Courts below have recorded findings of fact and unless these findings are shown perverse or contrary to record resulting in grave injustice to petitioner, in writ jurisdiction under Article 227, this Court exercising restricted and narrow jurisdiction would not be justified in interfering with the same.
In supervisory jurisdiction of this Court over subordinate Courts, the scope of judicial review is very limited and narrow. It is not to correct the errors in the orders of the court below but to remove manifest and patent errors of law and jurisdiction without acting as an appellate authority.
This power involves a duty on the High Court to keep the inferior courts and tribunals within the bounds of their authority and to see that they do what their duty requires and that they do it in a legal manner. But this power does not vest the High Court with any unlimited prerogative to correct all species of hardship or wrong decisions made within the limits of the jurisdiction of the Court or Tribunal. It must be restricted to cases of grave dereliction of duty and flagrant abuse of fundamental principle of law or justice, where grave injustice would be done unless the High Court interferes.
In D. N. Banerji Vs. P. R. Mukherjee 1953 SC 58 Hon'ble Supreme Court said:
"Unless there was any grave miscarriage of justice or flagrant violation of law calling for intervention, it is not for the High Court under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution to interfere."
A Constitution Bench of Apex Court examined the scope of Article 227 of the Constitution in Waryam Singh and another Vs. Amarnath and another AIR 1954 SC 215 and made following observations at p.
571 :
"This power of superintendence conferred by article 227 is, as pointed out by Harries, C.J. in Dalmia Jain Airways Ltd. Vs. Sukumar Mukherjee AIR 1951 Cal. 193, to be exercised most sparingly and only in appropriate cases in order to keep the Subordinate Courts within the bounds of their authority and not for correcting mere errors".
The Constitution Bench of Apex Court in Nagendra Nath Bora and Another v. Commissioner of Hills Division and Appeals, Assam & Others AIR 1958 SC 398 settled that power under Article 227 is limited to seeing that the courts below function within the limit of its authority or jurisdiction.
Hon'ble Apex Court had an occasion to examine this aspect of the matter in the case of Mohd. Yunus v. Mohd. Mustaqim & Others (1983) 4 SCC 566 in which Hon'ble Apex Court observed that the supervisory jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts under Article 227 of the Constitution is limited "to seeing that an inferior Court or Tribunal functions within the limits of its authority," and not to correct an error apparent on the face of the record, much less an error of law. For this case there was, in our opinion, no error of law much less an error apparent on the face of the record. There was no failure on the part of the learned Subordinate Judge to exercise jurisdiction nor did he act in disregard of principles of natural justice. Nor was the procedure adopted by him not in consonance with the procedure established by law. In exercising the supervisory power under Article 227, the High Court does not act as an Appellate Court or Tribunal. It will not review or reweigh the evidence upon which the determination of the inferior court or tribunal purports to be based or to correct errors of law in the decision."
The said view has also been reiterated by the Apex Court in Laxmikant Revchand Bhojwani & Another v. Pratapsing Mohansingh Pardeshi (1995) 6 SCC 576 and the Apex Court had again cautioned that the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution cannot assume unlimited prerogative to correct all species of hardship or wrong decisions. It must be restricted to cases of grave dereliction of duty and flagrant abuse of fundamental principles of law or justice, where grave injustice would be done unless the High Court interferes.
A three-Judge Bench of Hon'ble Apex Court in Rena Drego (Mrs.) v. Lalchand Soni & Others (1998) 3 SCC 341 again abundantly made it clear that the High Court cannot interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the subordinate court or the tribunal while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 227. Its function is limited to seeing that the subordinate court or the tribunal functions within the limits of its authority. It cannot correct mere errors of fact by examining the evidence and re-appreciating it.
In Jasbir Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2006 ) 8 SCC 294, the Apex Court said:
"...while invoking the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution, it is provided that the High Court would exercise such powers most sparingly and only in appropriate cases in order to keep the subordinate courts within the bounds of their authority. The power of superintendence exercised over the subordinate courts and tribunals does not imply that the High Court can intervene in the judicial functions of the lower judiciary. The independence of the subordinate courts in the discharge of their judicial functions is of paramount importance, just as the independence of the superior courts in the discharge of their judicial functions."
In Shalini Shyam Shetty and another Vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil (2010) 8 SCC 329, the Apex Court said that power of interference under Article 227 is to be kept to the minimum to ensure that the wheel of justice does not come to a halt and the fountain of justice remains pure and unpolluted in order to maintain public confidence in the functioning of the tribunals and Courts subordinate to High Court. The above authority has been cited and followed in Kokkanda B. Poondacha and others Vs. K.D. Ganapathi and another AIR 2011 SC 1353 and Bandaru Satyanarayana Vs. Imandi Anasuya (2011) 12 SCC 650.
In view thereof, I find no justification warranting interference with the orders impugned in this writ petition.
The writ petition sans merit and is accordingly
dismissed.
Order Date :- 17.9.2018 A. Pandey