IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17667 of 2011 Manju Devi Versus Matukdhari Mandal & Ors ---------------------------------- 2. 12.10.2011 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 12.8.2011 passed by Munsif-II, Munger in Title Suit No. 39 of 1998 whereby the learned court below rejected the application dated 10.5.2011 filed by the petitioner to recall the order dated 4.5.1999 and 5.7.2001. From perusal of the impugned order it appears that the learned court below after examining the record came to the conclusion that the defendant No.1 and her Advocate had the knowledge about the order passed by the court and the petitioner is trying to defy the order of the Court. The learned court below also found that the petitioner is trying to take undue advantage and is guilty of negligence and laches. Admittedly, in this case, earlier the order was passed by the court below on 4.5.1999 and 5.7.2001. Subsequently, a recall application was also filed on 19.2.2001 but the said application was not pressed and as such the said application was rejected. Thereafter in 2011 this application has been filed i.e. after about 10 years. This shows the inaction, laches and negligent on 2 behalf of the petitioner. The explanation given by the petitioner is that she had no knowledge about the order passed by the court below is not acceptable. It is well settled principles of law that on the ground of sympathy supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India cannot be exercised. In (2010) 8 SCC 329 the Apex Court has held that the jurisdiction of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India can never be governed under the original side rules of the High Court. The exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 is entirely discretionary and no person can claim it as a matter of right. Here in the present case as stated above the court below found the petitioner guilty of laches and negligence and the application has been filed for recall after lapse of 10 years. It is also well settled that supervisory jurisdiction should not be exercised in favour of a person who himself is guilty of laches and negligence. From perusal of the impugned order it appears that the learned court below has considered every aspect of the matter therefore, it is not a jurisdictional error. I therefore, find no merit in this writ application. Accordingly, this writ application is dismissed. S.S. (Mungeshwar Sahoo, J.)