Court No. - 18
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 6075 of 2018 Petitioner :- Shakeela Begum Respondent :- Civil Judge (Senior Division) Agra And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Pradeep Kumar Tiwari,Sushil Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- Sanjai Singh
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Heard Shri Pradeep Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Sanjai Singh, learned counsel for the respondent-bank.
The petitioner is before this Court assailing the order impugned dated 4.7.2018 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Agra on the application (8-Ga) moved by the petitioner in Suit No.684 of 2018 (Smt. Shakeela Begum vs. Punjab National Bank and others).
Learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner submits that the petitioner instituted a Civil Suit No.684 of 2018 (Smt. Shakeela Begum vs. Punjab National Bank and others) for permanent injunction alongwith application (8-Ga). By the impugned order dated 4.7.2018 learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Agra has only issued the notices to the respondent nos.2 and 3 and declined to pass any ex-parte interim injunction without hearing to the defendant-respondents. The petitioner is still in possession of the premises in question. The respondent nos.2 and 3 are trying to dispossess her from the suit property and auction the property in question, which will cause irreparable loss to the petitioner and as such, this Court should come for rescue and reprieve the petitioner.
Arguments raised on behalf of the plaintiff-petitioner has been resisted by Shri Sanjai Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent bank by contending that rightful order has been passed and no interference is required with the order impugned. He further makes submission that the aforesaid suit is barred by Section 34 of Securitiation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 and the plaint is liable to be rejected. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance on the judgement of this Court in Al-Habib Food Processing vs. Punjab National Bank, Meerut reported in 2013 Law Suit (All) 725.
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. 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 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 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 order impugned in this writ petition.
The writ petition sans merit and is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 31.8.2018 RKP