IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.22086 of 2011 Surendra Kumar Kejariwal Versus Rajiv Kumar Maharaj ---------------------------------- 2. 15.12.2011. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed for direction to the Executing Court in Execution Case No. 3 of 2010 to dispose of it expeditiously. In 2009 AIR SCW 767 M/s M.M.T.C. Limited vs. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes the Apex Court considering the various earlier decisions of the Apex Court at paragraph 10 held that under Article 226 an order, direction or writ is to issue to a person, authority or the State. In a proceeding under that Article the person, authority or State against whom the direction, order or writ is sought is a necessary party. Under Article 227 however, what comes of before the High Court is the order or judgment of subordinate court or tribunal for the purpose of ascertaining whether in giving such judgment or order that subordinate court or tribunal has acted within its authority and according to law. In the present case, no order has been produced by the petitioner. This application has been filed only for the relief that the learned Munsif Navgachiya be directed to proceed further in Title Execution Case No. 3 of 2010 according to law expeditiously. It appears that the eviction suit filed by the petitioner has been decreed by the court below. The 2 Second Appeal No. 322 of 2011 is pending before the High Court. During the pendency of the second appeal this application has been filed by the landlord praying for the aforesaid relief. As stated above no order passed by the Executing Court either against the petitioner or against the respondent is before this Court for exercise of judicial supervision. In the case of Shalini Shyam Shetty vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil 2010 (8) SCC 329 the Apex Court has held that the High Court committed an error in entertaining the writ petition in a dispute between the landlord and tenant and where the only respondent is a private landlord. It appears that in that case the High Court entertained the writ petition and dismissed also but the Apex Court held that the writ petition before the High Court under Article 226 was not maintainable. So far Article 227 of the Constitution of India the Apex Court held that Article 227 can be invoked by the High Court suo motu also as a custodian of justice. An improper and a frequent exercise of this power will be counterproductive and will divest this extraordinary power of its strength and vitality. The power is discretionary and has to be exercised very sparingly on equitable principle. This reserve and exceptional power of judicial intervention is not to be exercised just for grant of relief in individual cases but should be directed for promotion of public confidence in the administration justice in the large public interest. Therefore, the power under Article 227 may be unfettered 3 but its exercise is subject to high degree of judicial discipline. The object of superintendence under Article 227 both administrative and judicial is to maintain efficiency, smooth and orderly functioning of the entire machinery of justice in such a way as it does not bring into any dispute. Where the High Court exercises its jurisdiction under Article 227 such exercise is entirely discretionary and no person can claim it as a matter of right. It is well settled principle of law that any anxiety to cut the delay or further litigation should not be a ground to flought the settled fundamental principles of Code of Civil Procedure as justice delayed in many cases may amount to justice denied but at the same time justice hurried in many cases may amount to justice buried. In the present case at our hand admittedly, the tenant has filed the second appeal before this Court which is pending and the execution is of the year 2010. During the pendency of the second appeal the landlord filed this application for execution of the decree hurriedly. In my opinion, the supervisory jurisdiction is certainly not meant for this purpose. The conduct of the petitioner is not bona fide. In view of the above facts and circumstances, this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable for the grant of relief claimed by the petitioner and thus, it is dismissed. S.S. (Mungeshwar Sahoo,J.)