IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14360 of 2011 Yamuna Singh Versus Sheo Pujan Singh & Ors ----------- 02. 05.09.2011 Heard the learned senior counsel, Mr. Dhruv Narayan appearing on behalf of the petitioner. This application under Section 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the plaintiff-petitioner against the order dated 12.07.2011 passed by Sub Judge VI, Aurangabad in Partition Suit No.145 of 1994/134 of 2009 whereby the learned Court below allowed the application under Order 1 Rule 10(ii) read with Section 151 C.P.C. filed by the respondent nos.6 and 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the present respondent nos.6 and 7 filed the application for being added as party in the partition suit on the ground that they have purchased the part of the suit property from Bhagirathi Devi who was wife of Shyam Narayan Singh whereas the case of the plaintiff is that she was the wife of Ganauri Singh. Originally said Bhagirathi Devi filed application for being added as party and enquiry was going on regarding her addition but no finding could be arrived at by the Court below and prior to giving any finding, she died and thereafter these respondent nos.6 and 7 filed the present application and the learned Court below ignoring the fact that Bhagirathi Devi was not party to the suit, allowed the present intervention 2 application. From perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the learned Court below has found that admittedly the respondent nos.6 and 7 have purchased part of the property from Bhagirathi Devi and the question as to whether Bhagirathi Devi was wife of Shyam Narayan Singh or Ganauri Singh is a question to be decided finally in the suit itself. Prima facie, it was found that the plaintiffs admitted the fact that Bhagirathi Devi was daughter-in-law of Tilak Singh and the learned Court below allowed the application. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a decision reported in 2010(7) S.C.C. 417 and submitted that no doubt, the Court has the jurisdiction to pass order under Order 1 Rule 10 but the said discretion should be exercised judiciously and not arbitrarily. From perusal of the said decision, the Hon’ble Supreme Court at paragraph 24 has given some illustrations wherein it has also been mentioned that if a person makes an application for being impleaded contending that he is necessary party and if the Court finds that he is necessary party, it can implead him. As stated above in the impugned order, the learned Court below prima facie, found that the present intervener, respondent purchased a part of the suit property from Bhagirathi Devi, they are necessary party and, therefore, the Court below impleaded them. In a decision reported in (2003)6 Supreme Court 3 Cases 675(Suryadev Rai vs. Ramchander Rai), the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is exercised for keeping the Subordinate Courts within the bounds of their jurisdiction. When a Subordinate Court has assumed a jurisdiction which it does not have or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction which it does have or the jurisdiction though available is being exercised by the Court in a manner not permitted by law and failure of justice or grave injustice has occasioned thereby, the High Court may step into exercise its supervisory jurisdiction. In the said decision, the Hon’ble Apex Court also held that the supervisory jurisdiction is not available to correct mere error of fact or error of law unless 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 a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby. So far this propositions laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court is concerned, it has been reiterated again in (2009) 5 Supreme Court Cases 616 and then again in (2010) 8 Supreme Court Cases 329 and again in (2010) 9 Supreme Court Cases 385 and recently in 2011(3) P.L.J.R. 46 Supreme Court. In view of the above settled principles of law, I do not find any merit in this application. Accordingly, it is dismissed. Saurabh ( Mungeshwar Sahoo, J.)