1 (WP 7260 of 2009) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 7260 OF 2009 Narendra Kundanlal Varma ...Petitioner Vs. The Janalaxmi Co-operative Bank Ltd. and Ors. ...Respondents ----- Mr.K.S. Patil for Petitioner Mr. A.s. Desai for Respondent No.1 ----- CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATED: 1ST FEBRUARY, 2011 P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and the learned counsel for the Respondent No.1 2. The Petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the Co-operative Court in Dispute No.4 of 2002 and which order was confirmed by the Co- operative Appellate Court in Appeal No. 163 of 2008. An award was passed in favour of the Respondents. 3. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that four defences were purforth by the Petitioner in respect of; firstly on the ground that the Petitioner had 2 (WP 7260 of 2009) 25% share and, therefore, he was not liable to pay the entire amount of liability of the partnership firm; secondly the Petitioner had paid his share; thirdly on the ground of non-joinder of necessary parties and liability of the Petitioner for the loan disbursement prior to his entry in the partnership firm. He has taken me to the judgment of the Trial Court as well as Appellate Court. 4. It is not possible at this stage to interfere with the concurrent finding recorded by both the Courts below. The Apex Court in the case of – Surya Dev Rai, Appellant vs. Ram Chander Rai & Ors. Respondents [(2003) 6 Supreme Court Cases 675] has laid down the guidelines as to the circumstances under which High Courts should exercise the writ jurisdiction under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India, as under- “12. In the exercise of certiorari jurisdiction the High Court proceeds on an assumption that a Court which has jurisdiction over a subject-matter has the jurisdiction to decide wrongly as well as rightly. The High Court would not, therefore, for the purpose of certiorari assign to itself 3 (WP 7260 of 2009) the role of an Appellate Court and step into re-appreciating or evaluating the evidence and substitute its own findings in place of those arrived at by the inferior court. ... 38. Such like matters frequently arise before the High Courts. We sum up our conclusions in a nutshell, even at the risk of repetition and state the same as hereunder:- (1) ... ... (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 following requirements are satisfied : (i) the error is manifest and apparent on the face of the proceedings such as when it is based on clear ignorance or utter disregard of the provisions of law, and (iii) a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby. (6) A patent error is an error which is self-evident, i.e., which can be perceived or demonstrated without involving into any lengthy or complicated argument or a long-drawn process of reasoning. Where two inferences are reasonably 4 (WP 7260 of 2009) possible and the subordinate court has chosen to take one view the error cannot be called gross or patent. (7) The power to issue a writ of certiorari and the supervisory jurisdiction are to be exercised sparingly and only in appropriate cases where the judicial conscience of the High Court dictates it to act lest a gross failure of justice or grave injustice should occasion. Care, caution and circumspection need to be exercised, when any of the abovesaid two jurisdictions is sought to be invoked during the pendency of any suit or proceedings in a subordinate court and the error though calling for correction is yet capable of being corrected at the conclusion of the proceedings in an appeal or revision preferred there against and entertaining a petition invoking certiorari or supervisory jurisdiction of High Court would obstruct the smooth flow and/or early disposal of the suit or proceedings. The High Court may feel inclined to intervene where the error is such, as, if not corrected at that very moment, may become incapable of correction at a later stage and refusal to intervene would result in travesty of justice or where such refusal itself would result in prolonging of the lis. 5 (WP 7260 of 2009) (8) The High Court in exercise of certiorari or supervisory jurisdiction will not covert itself into a Court of Appeal and indulge in re-appreciation or evaluation of evidence or correct errors in drawing inferences or correct errors of mere formal or technical character.” 5. Taking into consideration the said observations made by the Apex Court, it will not be possible to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Lower Courts below. Writ petition is dismissed. (V.M. KANADE J.)