Court No. - 18
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 5841 of 2018 Petitioner :- Smt. Madhuri Shukla and 5 Others Respondent :- Pradeep Kumar Shukla And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Manish Tandon
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Heard Shri Manish Tandon, learned counsel for the defendants-petitioners.
The petitioners are before this Court assailing the order dated 19.4.2018 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No.8, Kanpur Nagar in Misc. Appeal No.35 of 2011 (Madhuri Shukla and others vs. Pradeep Kumar Shukla and others) and the order dated 22.2.2011 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kanpur Nagar in Misc. Case No.216/70/2003 (Pradeep Kumar Shukla vs. Shiv Kumar Shukla and others).
Learned counsel for the defendants-petitioners states that the plaintiff-respondent no.1 initiated proceedings under Succession Act seeking relief of succession on account of death of his father late Rajkrishna and claimed the assets of Locker No.09 ST-SBI Usman Branch, Kanpur and also a sum of Rs.42,345/- kept in Account No.2830178, Post Office, Anand Nagar, Kanpur and also the benefit of LIC Police of Rs.20,000/-. During the pendency of the aforesaid proceedings, the successor-in-interest namely Shivkumar Shukla (the husband of the first petitioner, father of third petitioner and father-in-law of petitioner no.2/1) died on 4.4.2003. The first petitioner filed her objection (Paper No.24/25-Ga) on behalf of her husband categorically stating that her husband was having mental disorder and late Raj Krishna had not decided his movable or immovable property amongst the descendants and the husband of the first petitioner has equal share. The counter objection (Paper No.33-Ga) was also filed by the plaintiff- respondent no.1 denying the claim set up by the petitioners. Finally, the trial court had allowed the succession certificate on 22.2.2011. The said judgment and order was assailed by the petitioners in Misc. Civil Appeal No.35 of 2011 and the same was dismissed by the lower appellate Court on 19.4.2018. The petitioners are entitled to get 1/7th share of the property left by late Raj Krishan (father-in-law of the petitioner no.1) by way of inheritance. The trial court committed gross illegality while determining the mental condition of the husband of the first petitioner and wrongly treated him to be a doctor. Shiv Kumar Shukla was having mental disorder and in this regard the medical prescriptions were also filed but learned trial court had recorded perverse finding that no medical certificate was filed by the petitioners. Learned lower appellate Court has also not recorded any independent finding or conclusion while dismissing the appeal in question and as such, this Court should come for rescue and reprieve the petitioners.
The Court has proceeded to examine the record in question and also perused the impugned orders and finds that there is no 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 categorical 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.
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 Virendra Kashinath Ravat & Another v. Vinayak N. Joshi & Others (1999) 1 SCC 47 Hon'ble Apex Court held that the limited power under Article 227 cannot be invoked except for ensuring that the subordinate courts function within its limits. The High Court cannot, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 227, interfere with findings of fact recorded by the subordinate Court or Tribunal. Its function is limited to seeing that the subordinate Court or Tribunal functions within the limits of its authority. It cannot correct mere errors of fact by examining the evidence and re-appreciating it.
In Indian Overseas Bank Vs. Indian Overseas Bank Staff Canteen Workers' Union (2000) 4 SCC 245, the Apex Court observed that it is impermissible for the Writ Court to reappreciate evidence liberally and drawing conclusions on its own on pure questions of fact for the reason that it is not exercising appellate jurisdiction over the awards passed by Tribunal. The findings of fact recorded by the fact finding authority duly constituted for the purpose ordinarily should be considered to have become final. The same cannot be disturbed for the mere reason of having based on materials or evidence not sufficient or credible in the opinion of Writ Court to warrant those findings. At any rate, as long as they are based upon some material which are relevant for the purpose no interference is called for. Even on the ground that there is yet another view which can reasonably and possibly be taken the High Court can not interfere.
In Surya Dev Rai Vs. Ram Chander Rai and others (2003) 6 SCC 675, it was held by the Apex Court that in exercise of supervisory power under Article 227, High Court can correct errors of jurisdiction committed by subordinate Courts. It also held that when subordinate court has assumed a jurisdiction which it does not have or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction which it does have or jurisdiction though available is being exercised in a manner not permitted by law and failure of justice or grave injustice has occasioned, the Court may step in to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction. However, it also said that be it a writ of certiorari or exercise of supervisory jurisdiction, none is available to correct mere errors of fact or law unless error is manifest and apparent on the face of the proceedings such as when it is based on clear ignorance or disregard of the provisions of law; or, a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby.
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 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.
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 :- 23.8.2018 RKP