IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9254 of 2011 Mostt.Bedami & Anr Versus Neela Devi @ Neelam Devi & Ors ---------------------------------- O R D E R 16. 15.12.2011 1. I have heard the learned senior counsel Mr. Shivnandan Roy appearing on behalf of the petitioners and the learned senior counsel Mr. Kamal Nayan Chaubey on behalf of the respondents. 2. This application has been filed by the plaintiffs respondents petitioners against the appellate judgment dated 5.4.2007 passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court - 5th Bettiah West Champaran in Title Appeal No. 20 of 1999 holding that the appeal has abated under Section 4 (C) of the Bihar Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation Act, 1956 and also holding that the judgment and decree dated 3.5.1999 passed by the Sub Judge, Bettiah in Title Suit No. 24 of 1990 has also been abated. 3. It appears that the plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration that the deed of Laddavi dated 27.8.1988 and deed of gift dated 29.9.1988 are forged, fabricated, inoperative, void-ab-initio document and further prayed for partition of the property. The said suit was decreed then the defendants filed appeal being Title Appeal No.20 of 1999. By the impugned judgment 2 after considering the evidences available on record the learned court below held that the said appeal has abated and consequently the judgment and decree passed by the trial court also abated. 4. In the case of Jai Singh and others vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and another (2010) 9 SCC 385 the Hon’ble Apex Court examining the scope of Article 227 of the Constitution of India held at paragraph 15 as follows : “15. We have anxiously considered the submissions of the learned counsel. Before we consider the factual and legal issues involved herein, we may notice certain well-recognised principles governing the exercise of jurisdiction by the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Undoubtedly the High Court, under this article, has the jurisdiction to ensure that all subordinate courts as well as statutory or quasi- judicial tribunals, exercise the powers vested in them, within the bounds of their authority. The High Court has the power and the jurisdiction to ensure that they act in accordance with the well- established principles of law. The High Court is vested with the powers of superintendence and/or judicial revision, even in matters where no revision or appeal lies to the High Court. The jurisdiction under this article is, in some ways, wider than the power and jurisdiction under Article 226 of the 3 Constitution of India. It is, however, well to remember the well-known adage that greater the power, greater the care and caution in exercise thereof. The High Court is, therefore, expected to exercise such wide powers with great care, caution and circumspection. The exercise of jurisdiction must be within the well- recognised constraints. It can not be exercised like a “bull in a china shop”, to correct all errors of judgment of a court, or tribunal, acting within the limits of its jurisdiction. This correctional jurisdiction can be exercised in cases where orders have been passed in grave dereliction of duty or in flagrant abuse of fundamental principles of law or justice.” 5. In view of the above settled principles of law in supervisory jurisdiction the High Court cannot re- appreciate the evidence as an appellate court and substitute its own finding. The correctness or otherwise of the finding recorded by the court below is depended on the evidence on record. The Apex Court has considered the various circulars and notifications and recorded the finding. It cannot be said that the appellate court had not acted within the limits of its jurisdiction. The conclusion arrived at by the lower appellate court cannot be said to be based on no evidence. It appears that the appellate court in the judgment has considered the materials available on 4 record. In such circumstances, there is hardly any justification to investigate into the issue by this Court under supervisory jurisdiction. Thus, the impugned judgment cannot be interfered with in supervisory jurisdiction. 6. Accordingly, this application under Article 227 of the Constitution is dismissed. S.S. (Mungeshwar Sahoo, J.)