Court No. - 18
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 6059 of 2018 Petitioner :- Hareshwar Bharti Respondent :- Wave Industries Pvt Ltd And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Vindhya Vashini Prasad Rai
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
The plaintiff-petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated 02.02.2017 passed by Ist Addl. Civil Judge, Senior Division, Saharanpur whereby the application for impleadment of Lord Krishna Sugar Mill under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC has been allowed, which has been affirmed by order dated 26.07.2018 passed by Addl. District Judge, room No.02, Saharanpur in Revision No.78 of 2017, which is also under challenge in this writ petition.
It appears that the plaintiff-petitioner filed Civil Suit No.194 of 2011 against Wave Industries Pvt. Ltd.- respondent no.1 for permanent injunction restraining the defendant-respondent no.1 not to dispossess the petitioner from Quarter No.1/1311/16B New Colony Old Sugar Mill Quarter situated near Labour Colony Saharanpur. The said claim had been refuted by defendant-respondent no.1 through written statement denying the claim set up by the plaintiff-petitioner. It is claimed that at the said juncture the respondent no.2, who was running a sugar mill in the name and style of Lord Krishna Sugar Mill Pvt. Ltd. was acquired by the State of U.P. under the provisions of U.P. Sugar Undertaking (Acquisition) Act, 1971 as amended by the Ordinance 1984 on 10th January, 1974. Consequently, the same was amalgamated with Uttar Pradesh Rajya Chini Nigam, Saharanpur through notification dated 10th January, 1974. In the proceedings of acquisition the then District Magistrate, Saharanpur was appointed as Receiver to take possession of the entire properties of Lord Krishna Sugar Mills including the disputed quarter. It is claimed that at no point of time the second respondent had ever taken any objection to the State of U.P. with regard to claim of suit property and by operation of law the suit property became the property of Uttar Pradesh Chini Nigam Ltd., Saharanpur. It is averred that at later stage vide registered sale deed dated 22.11.2010 Uttar Pradesh Rajya Chini Nigam sold the same properties to Waive Industries Pvt. Ltd.-respondent no.1. The dispute of quarter arose between respondent no.1 and the petitioner and as such suit in question was filed by the petitioner against the respondent no.1 for permanent injunction. In the suit proceeding the second respondent moved an application on 3.11.2011 under Order 1 Rule 10 along with Section 151 CPC for impleadment in the said suit. The same was objected by the petitioner denying the claim set up by the second respondent. Consequently, the First Addl. Civil Judge (SD), Saharanpur vide order dated 5.7.2014 rejected the application of respondent no.2. The same was assailed in Revision No.79 of 2014 by the second respondent. Vide order dated 14.5.2015 the revisional court set aside the order dated 5.7.2014 and the matter was remanded back for reconsideration. After remand the trial court allowed the application 41A of the respondent no.2 vide order dated 2.2.2017. The said order has been assailed by the plaintiff- petitioner in Revision No.78 of 2017 but the same was rejected vide order dated 26.7.2018.
In this backdrop, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the second respondent has no right, title or interest in the suit property in view of the inventory made by Receiver, which was prepared by Shri M.S. Negi, which runs in 72 pages as indicated in the letter dated 17.12.1984 by the District Magistrate, Saharanpur (Annexure No.5). The trial court has initially passed rightful order, which was eventually upset contrary to record and as such both the orders are unsustainable and as such this Court should come for rescue and reprieve of the petitioner.
The Court has proceeded to examine the record in question as well as the relevant provisions of Code of Civil Procedure. The object of Order I rule 10 enables the court to add any person as party at any stage of the proceedings if the person whose presence before the court is necessary in order to enable the court to effectively and completely adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit. Avoidance of multiplicity of proceedings is also one of the objects of the said provisions in the Code vide Savitri Devi v. District Judge, AIR 1999 SC 976.
The trial court while passing the order impugned has relied upon the judgment in Rajkumari & Ors. v. Addl. District Judge, Azamgarh & Ors., 2014 (1) JCLR 291 Alld. The revisional court has also considered in detail each and every objection of the petitioner.
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 concurrent 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 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 Abdul Razak (D) through Lrs. & others Vs. Mangesh Rajaram Wagle and others (2010) 2 SCC 432, Apex Court reminded that while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 or 227, High Courts should not act as if they are exercising an appellate jurisdiction.
In T.G.N. Kumar Vs. State of Kerala and others (2011) 2 SCC 772, the Court said that power of superintendence conferred on the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is both administrative and judicial, but such power is to be exercised sparingly and only in appropriate cases in order to keep the subordinate courts within the bounds of their authority.
In Commandant, 22nd Battalion, CRPF and others Vs. Surinder Kumar (2011) 10 SCC 244, Apex Court referring to its earlier decision in Union of India Vs. R.K. Sharma (2001) 9 SCC 592 observed that only in an extreme case, where on the face of it there is perversity or irrationality, there can be judicial review under Articles 226 or 227.
Similar view has also been taken in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Agra (M/s) vs. Kishore Kapoor, 2003 (2) ARC 639 and in Maksood Ali vs. Prescribed Authority/City Magistrate, Bulandshahr and 2 others, Writ C No.8609 of 2018 decided on 15.3.2018. Hon'ble the Apex Court in Dr. Kazimunnisa (Dead) by L.R. vs. Zakia Sultana (Dead) by L.R. & ors, Civil Appeal Nos.18783-18784 of 2017 decided on 15.11.2017 has observed in para-36 as under:-
"36) Lastly, we find that the High Court while reversing the findings of the Special Court decided the writ petition under Article 227 like a first Appellate Court by appreciating the entire evidence little realizing that the jurisdiction of the High Court while deciding the writ Petition under Article 227 is not akin to appeal and nor it can decide the writ petition like an Appellate Court."
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 :- 24.8.2018 SP/