IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (227) N0. '•^O"/'^ OF 2011 PETITIONERS [Defendant No.4 &3] 1) 2) RESPONDENTS ;1) [Plaintiffs] ^^. ^?^^--"" 2) ^'•<^^/^> ••<:®^^"' •^£>.^°' t!C1-'' .W' ^ ^•" --s^'. ...^'•" ....-" (Defendantno.1) 3) Ravindra Pal Singh, S/o Shri Ram Prasad Singh, aged about 58 years; R/o M-32, Rajeev Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) Sachin Shandilya, S/o Shri Upendra Shandilya, aged about 42 years, R/o A-25, Rajeev Nagar, Raipur, District-Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS Smt. Suman Dheer, W/o Shri B.K. Dheer, aged about 52 years; R/o MIG-19, Indrawati Colony, Raipur (C.G.) Smt. Rajkumari Kanda, W/o Shri Madan Lal Kanda, aged about 60 years; C/o Smt. Suman Dheer, R/o C/o Smt. Suman Dheer, MIG-19, Indrawati Colony, Raipur (C.G.) Gyan Ganga Educational Academy, village- Nardaha, Baloda Bazar Road, Tehsil & District- Raipur (C.G.) Laxmi Narayan Shandilya, S/o Shri H.P. Shandilya, aged about 55 years; R/o A-2, Rajeev Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) [died during the pendency of the civil suit, however name has not been deleted from cause title ofthe civil suit.li-n 'i«ipti<i«iej ovc'ei fvwsfwce f-1 A ' ^ ' . ^- Gyan Ganga Educational Institute Private Limited, village- Nardaha, Baloda Bazar Road, Tehsil & DistrictO-Raipur (C.G.) (respondent no.5 no mentioned in the cause title of impugned order though party defendant no.5 in civil suit) WRITPETITION UNDER ARTLCLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1) PARTICULARSOFPETITIONER: As mentioned in the cause title above. 2) PARTICULARS OF THE RESPONDENTS: As mentioned in the cause titte above. (Defendant no.2) 4) (Defendant no.5) 5) ^^^^s^^^?®^^i^^.s^^^^^^^^g^^ mCH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR S.B: Hon'ble Shri PrashantKumar Mishra Writ Petition f227) No. 207^2011 PETITIONERS RESPONDENTS Ravindra Pal Singh and another Versus Smt. Suman Dheer and others Appearance: Shri Ashish Surana, counsel for the petitioners. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ORAL ORDER (20.04.2011) Heard. (2) The Trial Court has dismissed petitioners application under Sectioa 151 of CPC which in tum was p-eferred to exempt the petitioners to produce any other document which was not mentioned in.the plaintiffs application dated 10/03/2006. (3) The issue pertains to an application moved by the plaintiffs under Order 11 Rule 16 ofCPC whieh was earlier rejected by the Trial Court on 14/02/2006, however in W.P. No. 1104/2006, this Court set aside tfae said order and directed the plaintifis to prefer a duly eonstituted application afresh. (4) Contention ofthe learned counsel for the petitioners is that the said fresh application was allowed by the Trial Court on 11/03/2010 under Order 11 Rule 12 of CPC. He would submit that prior to this (aiid after passing of the order by the High Court three more ^^^^^^^^iS^^S^'^S^S '%. '-K^?| | ^sy 2- applications filed by the plaintifEs under Order 11 Rule 16 vvere dismissed. He would thus submit that the plaintiffs have embarked upon a moving enquiry to make out the case without substantiating it by producing his witness. (5) This Court has pemsed the documents annexed with the writ petition. The issue pertains to production of document and the petitioners are only directed to submit documents No.l to 4 for its pemsal by the plaintiffs. (6) In the opinion of this Court, no prejudice is caused to the petitioners ifthe other party is given an opportunity to peruse the documents. The Trial Court has exercised its discretion and has directed production ofthe document for its perosal by tiie plaintiffs. (7) Leamed counsel for the petitioners has relied on Someshwari Prasad Narain Deo Vs. Maheshwari Prasad Narain Deo, AIR 1931 Patna 426, Lajpat Rai Vs. Tej Bhan and others, ABR 1957 Punjab 14 and Vinod Kumar Vs. Santi Devi and others, AIR1986 Madhya Pradcsh 19 to contend that the Trial Court has erred in properly appreciating the principles under Order 11 Rule 12 and the discretion has not been exercised properly. (8) Be that as it may, this is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, wherein challenge has been made to the order passed by the Trial Court directing the petitioners to produce some document for its perosal by the plaintiff. '^""s^'OS'^?^^^®^^^^^^^J^'RgsNS^^^^^S^^l^J^I^ -3 (9) In the matter of CeBna CoeBio Pereira (Ms) and othcrs Vs. UDias Mahabaleshwar Kholkar and others reported in (2010) 1 SCC 217 Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down principles as to when High Court would be justified in exercise of its jurisdiction under Artiele 227 ofthe Constitution oflndia. Relevant paragraphs 30, 31, 32 and 33 ofthe report are extracted hereunder: "30. In Bathutmal Raichand Oswal v. Laxnmbai R. Tarta, (1975) 1 SCC 858 fhis Courtheld: (SCC p. 865, para 7) 7. ... The High Court camwt tn guise ofexercising itsjurisdictvm widerArticle 227 convert itseyinto a court of appeal when the legisldtiire has not cwferreda ri^it ofappeal widmade the decision of the subordinate court or tribunalflnal onfacts." 31. In State v. Navjot SamSm. (2003) 6 SCC 641 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 1545 this Court explamed the pawer ofthe High Court mderArticle 227 thus: (SCCpp. 656-57, para 28) "28. Thus the lccw is that Article 227 of the Constttution oflndia gives the High Court the pawer of superintendence over all courts and tribunals throughout the territories in relation to -which it exercises jurisdictian. This jurvsdiction camiot be limited or fettered by any Act of ffie State Legislature. The supervisofy jurisdiction extends to keepmg the suborcSnate tribimals within fhe limits of their authority and to seeing that they obey the law. The powers under Article 227 are wide and can be uspd, to meet the ends ofjustice. They can be used to interfere evat -with an interlocutoiy order. ; However <he power under Article 227 is a -if- discretionary povrer csid it is difficult to attribute to an order ofthe Hi^i Court, such a source ofpower, when theHigh Court itselfdoes not in termspurport to exercise cavy such discretionary power. It is settled law that this power of Judicial superintendence, under Article 227, must be exercised sparhtgty and onty to keep subor<Mnate cowts and tribunals •within tlw bounds of their authority and not to correct mere errors. Furtlwr, where the stafufe bans the exerciss of reviaanal powers it would require very exceptianal circumstances to warrant interference underArttcle 227 ofthe Constituticn oflndia since the power of superintendence was not meant to circwnvent statutory law. It is settled law that fhe jurisdiction under Article 227 could not be exercised 'as the cloak ofan appeal in disguise '. 32. The aftjresaid two ckcisions midfew other decisions, namefy, Chcindcwarkar Sita Ratna Rao v. Ashalata S. Gurom, (1986) 4 SCC 447, State of Mahcirashtra v. Milind, (2001) 1 SCC 4 : 2001 SCC (L&S) 117 aiid Ranjeet Singh v. Ravi Prakash, (2W4) 3 SCC 682 came to be considered by tliis Court in Shamshad Ahmad v. Tilc& Raj Bajaj, (2008) 9 SCC 1 cmd this Court held: (Tilak Raj case, (2008) 9SCC 1, SCCpp. 10-11, para 38) 38. Though pcwers of a High Court under Arficles 226 and 227 are very wide and extensive over all courts and tribunak throu^tout the territories m relation to yvhich it exercises jurtsdiction, sudi powers must be exercised within the limits of law. The power is supervisory in ^y 5" nature. The High Court does not act as a court of appecd or a court oferror. It canneither review nor reappreciate, nor reweigh the evidence upan which determmation of a subordinate court or inferior tribwml purports to be based or to correct errors of fact or even oflcm and to subsfitute its own decision for that oflhe irtfertor court or tribwwl. The powers are required to be exerased most spccringfy and only in appropriate cases in order to keep the subordmate courts and inferior tnbwwls within the limits oflaw." 33. In light of the aforesaid legal position conceming jurisdiction oftheHigh Court widerArttcle 227, •which the High Courtfailed to keep in mind, it nust be held that in the facts and circumstcmces of the case and the fiw&tgs recorded by the Ackfitional Rent ControSer as well cis the Administrattve Tribvnal, the High Court was not Justified in interfering with the cancurrent orders ofevictian based on the gi'oioid ofsub-lettmg in exercise ofitspov/er imder Article 227 qfthe Canstitution oflndia" (10) Having examined the matter, this Court is satisfied that the Trial Court has not committed any such error which warrants interference and its cortectness by the High Court in exercise of power under Article 227 oftfae Constitution oflndia. (11) Petition fails and is dismissed. Sd//- Prashant Kumar Missira Judge O^v-