JUDGMENT Anjani Kumar, J.
1. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.
2. The petitioner-judgment debtor filed an objection under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure which was registered as Misc. Case No. 73 of 1971 and the plaintiff-decree-holder also filed an application under Order XXI, Rule 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which was registered as Execution Case No. 30 of 1971, which were heard and decided together. The executing court vide its order dated 3rd May. 1976, dismissed the objection filed by the judgment-debtor and allowed the application, as stated above, filed by the plaintiff-decree-holder with the observation that in case where compensation were provided for disobedience of an injunction, a separate suit is not necessary. The present case appears to be such a case, therefore, the compensation was awarded. Aggrieved thereby the judgment-debtor Municipal Board preferred an appeal before the Additional District Judge, Gorakhpur, which was registered as Civil Appeal No. 47 of 1976. The decree-holder also filed an appeal, which was registered as Civil Appeal No. 74 of 1976 that the order passed by the executing court by which his application was not accepted. The appellate court by the order impugned in the present writ petition maintained the order passed by the executing court and dismissed the appeal filed by the judgment-debtor Municipal Board and allowed the appeal filed by the decree-holder for an amount of Rs. 8,000/- as claimed for by the decree-holder. It is this order, which is under challenge by means of present writ petition.
3. The scope of interference by this Court in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India have been clearly explained in the case of Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai and Ors., 2003 (2) ARC 385. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court, particularly in para 38 of the judgment, which is reproduced below, no ground for interference is made out with the order impugned in the present writ petition.
"38. Such like matters frequently arise before the High Courts. We sum up our conclusion in a nut-shell, even at the risk of repetition and state the same as hereunder :
(1) Amendment by Act 46 of 1999 with effect from 1.7.2002 in Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure cannot and does not affect in any manner the jurisdiction of the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.
(2) Interlocutory orders, passed by the Courts subordinate to the High Court, against which remedy of revision has been excluded by C.P.C. Amendment Act 46 of 1999 are nevertheless open to challenge in. and continue to be subject to, certiorari and supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court.
(3) Certiorari, under Article 226 of the Constitution is issued for correcting gross errors of jurisdiction, i.e., when a subordinate Court is found to have acted (i) without jurisdiction-by assuming jurisdiction where there exists none, or (ii) in excess of its jurisdiction-by over-stepping or crossing the limits of jurisdiction, or (iii) acting in flagrant disregard of law or the rules of procedure or acting in violation of principles of natural justice where there is no procedure specified, and thereby occasioning failure of justice.
(4) Supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution is exercised for keeping the subordinate courts within bounce of their jurisdiction. When a subordinate court has assumed a jurisdiction which it does not have or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction which it does have or the jurisdiction though available is being exercised by the Court in a manner not permitted by law and failure of justice or grave injustice has occasioned thereby, the High Court may step in to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction.
(5) Be it a writ of certiorari or the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction, none is available to correct mere errors of fact or of law unless the following requirements are satisfied : (1) the error is manifest and apparent on the face of the proceedings such as when it is based on clear ignorance or utter disregard of the provisions of law, and (ii) a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby.
(6) A patent error is an error which is self evident, i.e., which can be perceived or demonstrated without involving into any lengthy or completed argument or a long-drawn process of reasoning. Where two inferences are reasonably possible and the subordinate court has chosen to take one view, the error cannot be called gross or patent.
(7) The power to issue a writ of certiorari and supervisory jurisdiction are to be exercised sparingly and only in appropriate cases where the judicial conscience of the High Court dictates it to act lest a gross failure of justice or grave injustice should be occasioned. Care, caution arid circumspection need to be exercised, when any of the above said two jurisdictions is sought to be invoked during the pendency of any suit or proceedings in a subordinate court and the error though calling for correction is yet capable of being corrected at the conclusion of the proceedings in an appeal or revision preferred there against and entertaining a petition invoking certiorari or supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court would obstruct the smooth flow and/or early disposal of the suit or proceedings. The High Court may feel inclined to intervene where the error is such, as if not corrected at that very moment, may become incapable of correction at a later stage and refusal to intervene would result in travesty of justice or where such refusal itself would result in prolonging of the Us.
(8) The High Court in exercise of certiorari or supervisory jurisdiction will not convert itself into a court of appeal and indulge in reappreciation or evaluation of evidence or correct errors in drawing inferences or correct errors of mere formal or technical character.
(9) In practice, the parameters for exercising jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari and those calling for exercise of supervisory jurisdiction are almost similar and the width of jurisdiction exercised by the High Courts in India unlike English Courts has almost obliterated the distinction between the two jurisdictions. While exercising jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari, the High Court may annul or set aside the Act, order or proceedings of the subordinate courts but cannot substitute its own decision in place thereof. In exercise of supervisory jurisdiction the High Court may not only give suitable directions so as to guide the subordinate court as to the manner in which it would act or proceed thereafter or afresh, the High Court may in appropriate cases itself make an order in supersession or substitution of the order of the subordinate court as the Court should have made in the facts and circumstances of the case."
4. This writ petition, therefore, has no force and is dismissed. The interim order, if any, stands vacated. However, the parties shall bear their own costs.