" ‘—Vxr-rw‘ L gfaw’“ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition N0. 31é4 [2003 / PETITIONERS :1. Madarl Kishore Sinha, aged 62 APPELLANTS Years, S/o. Shri Rajki$h0re Sinha Occupation gervice Ashok Kumar Sinha, aged 1§5 years S/ o. R‘ajkishore Sinhaj Occupation service Bath Rfo. Kedarpug Ward No.13 Ambikapur, Distt. Sarguja (C.G.) VERSU$ ‘ . Shri Rajkishore Prasad Sinha Aged 92 years, S/o.Late Jagdamb Sahay, Occupaticn agriculture R10. Kedarpur, Ward No.13, Ambikapur, Distt. Sarguja (C.G.) . State of Chhattisgarh Through the Qollector Arribikapur, Distt.Sarguja (C.G.) . Madhusudan Sinha, aged 59 years Sjo. Rajkishere Sinha, Gccupation Service, Rio. Kedarpur, Ward No.13, Ambikapur, District“ Sarguja {c.G ) N UJA 227 OF THE CONSTITUTXQN OF INDIA PARTICULARS OF THE PETITIONERS As set—out in the cause title above. 2. PARTICULARS OF THE RESPONDENTS As set—out in the cause title above. 293 WRIT PETITIO HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR (C.6.) WRIT PETITION NO.3264 OF 2003 Madan Kishore Sinha and ano'rher. Versus Shri' Rajkishore Pmsad Sinha and 'rwo o‘rhers. PE'ITI'IONERS: RESPONDENTS: Present: - Shri S.P. Sahu, Advocafer For The pefi’rioners. Before: Hon'bb Shri LC. Bhadoo J O R D E R (Passed on 3g ii“ November, 2003) The pe‘rifioner's have preferred fhis wrif pe‘ri‘rion under Ariicle 227 of The Consfifufion of India challenging fhe judgmenf and decree da'l'ed 31" January 2003 passed by the Dis‘rriu Judge, Sarguja in Civil Appeal No. 4-A/2002 and order dared 21-7-2003 passed in review applicafion No. 6/2003 and fhe judgmem and decree dafed 15-4-2002 passed by The learned Civil Judge, Class-I, Ambikapur, Disiric‘i Sarguja in Civil §ui+ No. 6-A/2002. 2. Brief fads leading f0 filing of This wrif pefifion are Thai The pefifioners filed a civil suif for declara‘rion and permanent l injuncfion in The Cour? of Civil Judge, 1“ Class, Ambikapur agains‘r respondenf No.1 wifh the avermeni‘s fhaf 'ihe pefi'l'ioners are The sons of respondenT No.1 and respondenT No.1 acquired cerTain personal properTies and he parTiTioned ,ThaT properTies on 1-1-70 and ouT of which The properTies menTioned in Schedule-A was given To The peTiTioner No.1 and @ l)\ fhe proper-Ties menfioned in Schedule-B was given fa The pefifioner No.2 and far- r-emaining paM of ‘rhe properfies righf of par'fi'rion was reserved. "I‘l' was fur‘rher' men+ioned Thu? ou1’ of ‘l'he proper‘ties of Schedule-A which was given 1'0 The pefi‘l'ioner No.1, 4 decimal land was sold by respondenf No.1 1'0 his Third son namely, Madhusudhan and on 15-1-86 on The requesT of Madhusudhan The Third san of respondenT No.1, respondenT No.1 prepared a parTiTion deed which was amended on 9-3-89, buT since seTTlemenT could noT wrive gbewieen respondenT No.1 and The Third son, Therefore, respondenT No.1 changed his decision and cancelled ThaT deed. On 26” January 2001 afTer relying on The parTiTion daTed 1-1-70 a memorandum was wriTTen and Two monThs back The peTiTioners came To know ThaT respondenT No.1 was planning To sale The properTies which were given To The peTiTioners in parTiTion. Upon This They enquired from respondenT No.1 buT he did noT reply saTisfacTorily. However, even afTer The parTiTion daTed 1—1-70 all The properTies were sTill in The name of: respondenT No.1 and The peTiTioners' name was noT enTered in The revenue records. RespondenT No.1 himself appeared before The courT and filed almosT a consenT wriTTen sTaTemenT in which admiTTed The plainT buT he said ThaT iT is incorrecT To say ThaT respondenT No.1 wanTs To sale The properTies of Schedule-A and B. AfTer considering The plainT and The wriTTen sTaTemenT’ learned Civil Judge reached The conclusion ThaT There was no cause of acTian for The pIainTiff To file The suiT and The suiT being a collusive in naTure dismissed The suiT, againsT which The peTiTioners herein filed an appeal before The DisTricT Judge, Ambikapur and The learned DisTricT Judge, Ambikopur also affirmed The judgmenT md decree passed by The Civil Judge. Learned DisTricT Judge also reached The conclusion ThaT There was no cause of acTian for The plainTiff and moreover, The suiT was collusive in na'l'ure and The Third ground was Taken ThaT immovable properTy cannoT be Transferred wiThouT regisTraTi7< k / ; KETm $ j G)? of fhe same as envisaged in 5ec1'ions 17 and 49 of 1'he Indian Regisfr'afion Act A review pe‘ri‘rion was aiso filed by fhe pefi‘iioners agains‘i' fhaf judgmenf and decree and fhe same came To be rejecfed by The above order. I have heard fhe learned counsel for fhe pe'iii'ioners. 5. Learned counsel for fhe pefifioners submifi'ed fhai'jlge ground Taken by bofh The CourTs for dismissal of The smfare noT in accordance wiTh law. On The conTrary learned Lower CourT and DisTricT Judge oughT To have passed The decree in favour of The peTiTioners looking To The avermenTs in The‘plainT and which were admiTTed by respondenT No.1. 6. Under ArTicle 227 of The ConsTiTuTion of India The supervisory jurisdicTion of The High CourT is To The exTenT as has been held by The Hon’ble Apex CourT in The moTTer of STa'I’e, Throtgh special Cell, New Delhi v. NavjoT sondhu e Afshan Guru and Ors. reporTed in JT 2003 (4) 5C 605 ThaT “The law is ThaT ArTicle 227 of The ConsTiTufion of India gives The High CourT The power of superinTendence over all CourTs and Tribunals Throughouf The TerriTories in relaTion To which iT exercises jurisdicTion. This jurisdiction cannoT be limiTed or feTTered by any AcT of The STaTe LegislaTure. The supervisory jurisdicTion exTends To keeping The subordinaTe Tribunals wiThin The limiTs 9f Their auThoriTy and To seeing ThaT They obey The law. The powers under ArTicle 227’ are wide and can be used, To meeT The ends of jusTice. They can be used To inTerfere even wiTh an inTerlocuTory order. IT is. seTTle law ThaT This power of judicial superinTendence, under ArTicIe 227, musT be exercised sparingly and only To keep subordinaTe CourTs and Tribunal's wiThin The bounds of Their auThoriTy and noT To correcT mere errors.” in The case of Surya Dev Roi v. Ram Chander kai and a i o‘l'hens reporTed in 2003 AIR SCW 3872, The Hon‘ble Apex CourT has-held ThaT: .l \\ \ “Under- Arficle 227 of 1'he Consmufion af India, +he wrif of cerfiorar-i is an exercise of its original jurisdiction by The High Cour‘I': exercise of supervisory jurisdic‘i‘ion is no? an original jurisdicfion and in fhis sense it is akin io appellate revisional or correciive jurisdiction. In exercise of supervisory jurisdicfion fhe High Courf may no? only quash or se1' aside fhe impugned proceedings, judgment or order bui if may also make such direcfions as the fac‘rs and circums‘rances of the case may warrant may be by way of guiding fhe inferior Cour‘l' or Tribunal w 1'0 1'he manner in which if would now proceed furiher or afresh as commended To or guided by ihe High ,Qourf. In appropriaie cases ihe High Couri, while exeigcising supervisory jurisdicfion may subs'rifu’re such a decision of i‘is own in place of The impugned decision, as The inferior Courf or Tribunal should have made. Supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution is exercised for keeping the subordinate Courts within the bounds of their jurisdiction. When the subordinate Court has assumed a jurisdiction which it does not have or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction which it has or the jurisdiction though available is being exercised by the Court in a mariner not permitted by law and failure of justice or grave injustice has occasioned thereby, the High Court may step in to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction.” In view of the above law laid down by the Hon‘ble Apex Court, if we look into the present case both the courts reached the conclusion that the suit is collusive between the sons and father in order to save the stamps registration fees. Since everything was admitted by respondent No.1, therefore, there was no cause of action for the plaintiffs to file the suit. In view of the circumstances, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the judgment and decree impugned, neither the subordinate courts have assumed the jurisdiction which it does not have or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction which it has or the jurisdiction available is being exercised in a manner not permitted by law or by the impugned judgment and decree a failure of justice or grave injustice has resulted to the petitioners. Both the courts have not acted in flagrant . disregard of law or rules or procedure. They have not acted in / j violation of The principles of na'rural justice or there is no manifesf error apparenf on i’he face of The proceedings. This Couri' in wrif jurisdiction cannof aci- as an appeilnfe Court Therefore. I do no? find any reason 1-0 interfere with the concurrent findings and judgments of both the courts. Moreover, the petitioners ore entitied to file second appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the District Judge in first appeal. As per the provisions of Section 109,0f the C.P.C. ‘second appeal lies before the High Court gainst the judgment and decree where the decree passed in appeal by any Court subordinate to the High Court, if the High Court is satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law.’ Therefore. the alternative remedy was also available with the petitioners but they hove not availed it. In the result, writ petition is without force and the same is liable to be dismissed and it is dismissed. Sid/e L.C.BHADOG < 1 V/ :%945 m ,. . ,. o... o %3