Civil Revision No. 1677 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 1677 of 2009 Date of decision: 5.1.2011 Seema Chaddha ................Petitioner Versus Brijnesh Chaddha ...................Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Present: Mr. Jatinder Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Vivek Goel, Advocate for the respondent RANJAN GOGOI, ACJ. : (Oral) The parties to the present proceedings who are husband and wife had purportedly settled their differences arising in a divorce petition filed by the respondent-husband in the following terms:- “Stated that we have amicably sorted all differences between us and we both withdraw all allegations, which have been made by us against each other in the present case. We have decided to live together. The present petition may be dismissed as withdrawn.” The above statement was filed before the learned Trial Court on 21.1.2009. The learned Trial Court did not pass any order disposing of the divorce petition in terms of the settlement but adjourned the matter to 24.1.2009 for being put up before the Permanent Lok Adalat. On the said date before the Permanent Lok Adalat, the respondent husband filed an application stating Civil Revision No. 1677 of 2009 2 that he was wrongly induced to sign the settlement and furthermore that in terms thereof the petitioner-wife had refused to join him in the matrimonial home. Accordingly, the respondent-husband prayed for continuance of the divorce petition and for a decision on merits. The learned trial Court by impugned order dated 14.3.2009 allowed the said application with the observation that the effect of the compromise/settlement dated 21.1.2009 would be considered at the relevant stage of the proceedings. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 14.3.2009 the petitioner-wife had filed the present application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The learned Single Judge hearing the aforesaid application, by order dated 7.7.2010, has referred the matter to the Division Bench on the following question of law:- “Whether after the parties have entered into a valid compromise in a lis, either party can resile from the same” Having considered the matter we are of the view that the question referred to the Division Bench by the learned Single Judge need not receive an answer as the matter is capable of being resolved and the application under Article 227 disposed of without answering the question referred. The matter being before us it is our considered view that the same should be finally decided at this stage without causing a remand of the matter to the learned Single Judge as any such order of remand is bound to cause delay and consequential prejudice to either of the parties. The learned trial Court, as already noticed, by order dated 14.3.2009 had clearly observed that the effect of the joint settlement between the parties will be considered at the appropriate stage. If that be so, Civil Revision No. 1677 of 2009 3 we fail to understand as to how the petitioner-wife can be left with any grievance to agitate by means of an application under Article 227. The power under Article 227 is certainly not an appellate or revisional power but it is supervisory jurisdiction which would be exercised to ensure that the subordinate courts function within the limits of their jurisdiction. The learned Additional District Judge having observed that the effect of the joint settlement between the parties will be considered at the appropriate stage was perfectly within the limits of the jurisdiction vested in it by law to come to the said conclusion. If the petitioner-wife wanted such consideration to be made at any particular stage of the divorce petition it was always open to her to move the learned Trial Court. Instead she has rushed to this court by seeking to invoke the very rare jurisdiction under Article 227 which we do not consider to be justified. Consequently, we dispose of the application under Article 227 filed by the petitioner with the aforesaid observations and directions. C.M.No. 168 of 2010 Since main petition has been disposed, no order is required to be passed on this C.M. (RANJAN GOGOI) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE January 5, 2011 RSK Civil Revision No. 1677 of 2009 4 NOTE: Whether to be referred to the Reporter or not? _____