\ww Qiw i ll MEMxmmmmm MHQNMWM Qw .WqwmmwmWwqMMWm. hww; mMWWmWwMW mm a%w wwwmmmwmw E3 “mmmw\ mwmwmwwm mwmuwwmw m. m mmmmmammmwmmEmEm mmWEmaw NW mwmivmwwgmmam mmgmumRmmm m3aw Egg . y w u m w p . mMmmw mwgmmmMummmm.“ mum a. Nammwmmmw WW M$MW m»MTQEwmwmmam“ £ mwmwwrmmmm mgmwF5 Wmmmm‘mu m3mwmmgr 31 WwEwmF mmmm MwEuE wwmmmmq mmamwmw my “mmmwwk wmmmw mmoma. wwwwmnmu Em nawwm. mgwmHF mwmm wwow” "Nwmwmm“ Em .mEEw,‘ mi. ammammmmm dEmww mammmP Ewmm Wmimmmbmw wri wmmgQwmw waxwmwww WM EmwmQm?magwwgwmw.wwwmmw m3 mwmmmw, MW wFMmwmwwuEm wwwwwwmdmmm wwmmwma Wm Hm? wmmw WW, dammmmm mmwmmmwu Hwwmm Wmwmmwmg? Id it; wwwm.u am mdmwmwmamgw mmmiwwawn “umwmmawa E XI—HC-ZZ mm amr‘amifai 02/09/2003 Shri Vishnu Koshta, ounsel for the petitioners. Heard. / Th0 patitioncrs have pmferred this Writ P6tition under . Article 227 of the Consu'tut on of India being aggrieved by the order dated 21/07/2003 passed by Civil Judge, Class I, Kondagaon, Dist. Bastar ( G) in Civil Suit No. 17-A/2002 by which leamed trial Co petitioners filed under Secti n 15 1 of the C.P.C., for taking the written statement and do nts on record and allowed the c e application of the responde tsfplaintjEs in that suit that after expiry of 9O days from. th date of service of summons the defendants cannot be allo ed to E6 the written statement in terms of the Order 8 Rule 1 fthe C.P.C. It is admitted positio that after service of summons on the petitioners, they app ared before the hial Court o'n 21/0172003 and they. med the application under §ection 151 of the C.P.C. on 21/07] 2O 3 along with the Written statement and documents. The ground taken in that application m ‘ ‘rejected the application of the XIvHC—‘22 was that they were not ab‘ Therefore, admittedly, the writ i.e., after 1'75 days. ’In this beyond the period of 90 days connection, perusal of the ordc r 8 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure providc that the deft :ndant shall, Within thirty days from the date of service of sum mons on him, present a written statement of his defence, provid to f11e the written statement wit he shall be allowed to file the s. be specified by the Court, for re but which shall not be later th service of summons. Therefore 3O days’ time is allowed to file reveals that in ordinary course the written statement. Howevtr, the éourt for the reasons to i be recorded, can extend upto this provision does not make allow the defendant to file the any discretion to the Court to reasons may be. written statement for whatever to collect the documents. ie ten statement was filed much e that where the defendant fails bin the said period of 3O days, ame on such other day, as may asons to be recorded in writing, m ninety days flom the date of perusal of the above provision 90 days, but beyond 90 days’ any exception or does not give J Therefore, in XI—HC—ZZ 3mm View of this pmvision, the petitioners have not $gjhe wn'tt'en statement Within 90 days. The scope under Article Z 2'7 of the Constitution of India has been explained by Hon’bleApex Court in the case of mate Vs. Na 'ot Sandhu ft?) Afshan Guru and others reported in J’I‘ 2003 (4) 605. The Apex court has held that the power under rticle 227 are Wide and can be used, to meet the ends ofjustic even with an interlocutory order. Article 227 is a discretjouaiy attribute to an order of the High Court, such source of power, when the High Court itself docs not in terms purports to exercise any such discretionary power. It is settle law that this power of judicial superintendence, under Article 2‘27, must be exercised sparingly and only to keep subordinate courts and Tribubal’s Within the bovnds of t . correct mere errors exercise of revisienal powers it would require very exceptional circumstances to warrant intelfe Fence under Article 227 of the cial Cell New D They can be used to interfere However, the power under power and it is dimcult to their authority and not to I Further where the statute ban's the t S hrou h e e .' . . 11mm WL 200 We! feat-em seawater?! mmswm estimate mm Lw e power of superintendence waS It is settled law that Constitution of India since tmy law. not meant to circumvent sta the jurisdiction undex Articlc 227 could not be exercisod “as the cloak of an appsal in disg In another decision, S 8r. others reported in JT 2003 (6) SC 465 the Apex Coult has held that in exercise of certi ran' or supervisory jurisdiction, the High Court will not cove indulge in re—appreciation or valuation of evidence or correct ect errors of mere formal or z ubordiuate cgurt has assumed a technical character. Where a . have or has failed to exercise a jurisdich'on which it does not jurisdiction which it has or the jurisdiction though available is being exercised in‘ a manner : not permitted by law and failure Ls resulted, the High Court may r of justice or grave injustice ha step in to exercise its supervis‘ )ry jurisdiction” . .I laid down by the Hon’ble Apex In View of.,the above lav: court, the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India only interferes with the ise". itself into a court of appeal and ' in drawing inferences or c order of the subordin ’/,, ate court