IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH ATBILASPUR WRIT PETITION (C) No. [1^'^ Of 200^- PETITIONER \e>^.-^ ^.-••"^' /^.f^ff-^ .••' ^- 4<~^ €^: »<s'A.' „!?°' ^- '' Kuman Singh S/o Madan Lal aged about 40 years , resident of •• Parsuli , Post Office - Khertha _..•• '' Bazar, Tahsil Dondilohara, District Durg , Chhattisgarh (CG). VERSUS RESPONDENTS *. r^> •^^c^ <^yy ^ute ^y ^'\° .0; l.Ramchand S/o Madan Lal by caste - Sonkar , aged about 45 years , resident of ParsuU, Post Office Khertha Bazar, Sub TahsU Marribangla Devri , Tahsil Dondilohara, Distnct Durg (CG). 2.The State of Chhattisgarh, through Collector , Raigarh (CG). WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE^86/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1. PARTICULARS OF THE PETITIONER: As stated in the cause title above. ^^^.•'^,: ^ •'•-&-'—• '1.<S HiGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT-SSLASPUR SLNGLE BENCH : HON'BLE MR. Sj Petitioner ResDondents versus Kuman Sinah Ramchand and another ^F/? <?-j.^7 Present : Mrs. Renu Kochar, counsel for the petitioner, None appears for the respondent No. 1. Mr. Utkarsh Verma; Deputy Governrnent Advocate for the State/respondent No. 2. ind (Passed on 2"° Day of Mareh, 2007) »- 1. This writ petition, filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, challenges the iegality and validity of the order dated 26-7- 2006 (Annexure P-7) passed In miscellaneous Civii Appeal No. 2/05 by the Additlonai District Judge, Balod, District-Durg, whereunder the appiication under 39 Ruie 1 and 2 of the Code of Civii Procedure, 1908 ("for short the Code") filed by the petitioner, in pending Suit No.26A/05 (Kuman Singh Vs. Ramchand etc.) before Clvii Judge Ciass-!, Baiod, District-Durg.was rejected. 2. The indisputable facts in nutsheli are that the petitioner/plaintiff has filed the Civil Suit for possession of disputed land bearing Khasra . 196/2, 196/3 and 196/4 admeasuring 0.26 hectares and bearins Khasra No. 662/2, •1^.1 £.. i2/3, 662/4 admeasurlng 0.52 hectares from ^ -- respondent No. 1/defendant. !n the said pending suit, the petitioner has fiied an application under order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Code, for interim Iniunction aaainst resoondent No. 1/defendant from interferina with harvesting of crops shown on the said land bearing Khasra No. 196/2, 196/3and 196/4. 3. The Civi! Judge Class-1, Baiod, vide order dated 21.11.2005, (Annexure P-5) dismissed the application of the petitioner holding that the petitioner was not in possession of the said land, for which the petitioner had sought for injunction and as such there was no necessity of filing the suit for possession. Keeplng in view, balance of convenience found not in favour of the petltioner, the Civi! Judge dismissed the said appiication. 4. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed miscellaneous appeal, ynder order XLIil Ru!e 1 of the Code of Civi! Procedure, 1908, in the Court of the Additional District Judge, Balod, District-Durg. The said appeal was dismissed on the ground that the order passed by the Civit Court in the appiication fi'ed under order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Code was just and proper. !t was held that the disputed properiy was in the joint possession of the petitioner and respondent No. 1, as the petitioner and respondent No. 1 are real brothers. Thus, without proper partition the interim injunction against the respondent No. 1 couid not be granted. 5. I have heard iearned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the pleaaings and documents appended thereto. The finding recorded by the tria! Court as well as by the First Appellant Court is on the basis of material documents and on sound res.soning. There is no irregularity, infirmity or jurisdictiona! error. C»-<ss> ¥- 6. It is well settled that the power to issue a writ of certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution or the exereise of supervisory jurisdiction are to be exercised sparingly and oniy in appropriate cases where the judidal conscience of the High Court dictates it to act. (See Surya Dev 3ai vs. Ram Chander Rai and others ). 7. In Surya Dev Rai vs. Ram chander Rai and others (supra), it was further held that a writ of certiorari under Article 22S of the Constitution is issued for correcting gross errors of jurisdiciion, i.e., when a Subordinate Court is Tound So have acted (i) without jurisdiction- by assuming jurisdiction where there exists none, or (ii) in excess of its jurisdiction-by overstepping or crossing the limits of jurisdlction, or (iii) acting in flagrant disregard of law or the rules of procedure or acting in violation of principies of natural justice where there is no procedure specifled, and thereby occasioning faiiure of justice. In the same case, Hon'ble the Supreme Courtfurther heid as under:- "38. Such like matters frequently arise before the High Courts. We sum up our conciusions in a nutsheil, even at the risk of repetition and state the same as hereuncter: (1) xxxxx (2) xxxxx (3) xxxxx (4) xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx (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 foilowing requirements are satisfied : (i) the error is manifest and apparent on the fact of the proceea'ings such as when It is based on ciear ignorance or utter disregard of the ^ provisions of iaw, and (ii) a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby." 8. The Supreme Court further in the matfer of Kishore Kumar Khaitan and another vs. Praveen Kumar -Singh he!d as under :- "13. The jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution may be rsstrictive in the sense that it is to be invoked only to correct errors of jurisdiction. But when a court asks itself a wrons question or approaches the question in an improper manner, even if it comes to a finding of fact, the said finding of fact cannot be said to be one rencSered with jurisdiction and it wiil stili be amenable to correction at the hands of the High Court under Articie 227 of the Constitution. The failure to render the necessary findings to support its order wouid also be a jurisdictiona! error liable to correction. Here the jurisdiction to grant an interim mandatory injunction could be exercised on entering a finding that on the day the order for maintaining the status quo was passed, the plaintiff was in possession and a day after the interim order was padded, he was in fact dispossessed. The interim order a direction to maintaln status quo was an ex Darte order. From the order of the Additional District Court it is not possibie to come to the conclusion that on a proper advertence to the rslevant materials, prima facie clear findings had been rendered by that court on these aspects. The prima facie infirmities attached to the letter said to create the tenancy cannot also be ignored, since that transaction is the foundation of the plaintiff's claim of possession." !n the present case, the issue invoived was properly anaiyzed and the finding recorded was supported by sufRcient evidence. t Thus, it cannot be heid that there was any jurisdictional error which is Siable to corrected by this Court in exercise of its supervissng jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 10. As a result and foregoing reasons, this petition stanas dismissed. No order as to costs. ~-_ s^^~ Q^ ^tfp'gegWi]otrj (2003) 6 SCC 675 (2006) 3 SCC 312 Subhash