Court No. - 18
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 6718 of 2018 Petitioner :- Mohd. Faizan Respondent :- Additional District Judge, Court No.5, Moradabad And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Kashif Gilani
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
The defendant-petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated 19.02.2018 passed by Addl. District Judge, Court No.5, Moradabad in Revision No.28 of 2017 (Mohd. Faizan v. Sarfaraz Hussain), whereby the order of the trial court dated 13.4.2017 rejecting the petitioner's application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC has been affirmed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out any manifest error apparent on the face of record in the impugned order so as to justify interference by this Court in extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
The Court below has 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.
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 order impugned in this writ petition.
The writ petition sans merit and is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 11.9.2018 SP/