" S. B. HON’BLE SHRI DHIRENDRA MISHRA. J Writ Petition (C! No. 820/2008 ' . PETITicNER : Lina Jaiswal Wd/ 0 Late ' Y 7 RESP$NDENT NS. ' ‘ 'Glr'ihanlw u aiSwal, ugau bout H é ' ' . ‘ ‘ 73 years ‘Rfo Ramanuigani'; ' ‘ Road, Ambikapur, - ‘Di‘sm‘c‘t /Surguja(CG] VERSUS ‘RESPONDENTg ‘ 1. ’Balram Jaiswal, Aged about 52 - Electiqn Petitioner . ¥ ' years, S/o Late Jayn‘arayan“ Prasad daiswal, Ward Nd 18,;r Mahatma Gandhi Ward, Nagar' .na1‘1, V bJkaptu, RS. and Tah511 Ambmapm Disuict‘ lalln l‘l5r‘ll', m Surguja(CG) 2. ‘ 'Shashiprapha JaisWal _r W10. ‘ Balram JaiswaL Ryo Mahatma Gandhi Ward' No 18 Near‘ Jalswal Dhaxmshala [Baunpara Nag“ Dahk Nxgam, Amb1kapur D1stt SurgmamG) ' 3. ’Bimla Soni W/o. Kapildsv‘ 8011i, 'Agcd sabout 45 years,f\R/o‘ ‘ Mahatma Gandhi Ward No. 18, ’ (Ah€da ‘ Kanabandh \Pindh) Ambikapur, Distt, Surguja ($G) _ ‘_ 4, ' Rdurning Officar, (Municipal' K / V Corporation; r ‘Ahabaapm) (Coll6ct01‘ Surquga) Amblkapur [hstt S‘*"uja(CG) ' 5. ,. ‘ *Tahsildar. ,Ambikapur. Distn'ct, I ‘ ‘ Surguja (Chhattisgarh)' ‘ (Respondents No. 2 to 5 Respandents] Noh-ayiyliéaats) - _1 1.3.2008 Shm' Manoj Paranjpe, counsel for fhe peh'iioner. ‘ , Heard on admission BV flna pshtmn under Artlele 227 of the Cons’utuhon of In 1a ‘ ”the pefltlonel has questioned the DroDnetV and vahdlty of the ordel " / n1 . dated 1 1 1’) 2007 of Annexura P] 10 whereby the learned III Addmonal ’wM - lr//w,,, A¢y A 'w’ I J‘ in istrict Judga, Ambikapur has allowed the application (Ammxum P] 8) j ‘ f the respondent No. ’2 for permiSsion to emss-examine the petitioner. The Deutloner 1S an elected corporator of Mun1c1pa1 Corporation mblkapur The respondent No 1 husband of respondent No 2 Who ontested electlon against the pehttoner, med the ‘elechon petlhon gainst the election of the petitioner as corporator. In the election F petition proceedings therevidence of the petitioner was recorded on 31“ October 2007 and she was discharged. However, the application. of espOndent No. 2 for permission to cross—examine the petitioner was allowed by the impugned order. The petitioner haS‘impugned the above order on the ground that he evidence'of the petitioner was recorded in the presence of the arties, she was cross-examined at length on behalf of respondent . o.1, the election petitioner and in these circumstances, the court elow should not have allowed the prayer of the respondents and“ herebv Denmt them to fill up the lacuna of the case The discretion vailable to the Court below under Order 18 Rule 17 of the C P C annot be exereised at the request of the respondents and thus“ the H/ ourt below has acted With material illegalltv - I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. It is settled law that newer under Article 227 of the Constitutiori‘ ‘ t f India is to be‘used sparingly and only'in appropriate cases for the ' 1 urpose of keeping the subordinate Courts and tribunals within the ounds of their authorities and not for correcting their mere errors he power maV be exerc1sed 1n cases of occasmning grave injustice 01 failuie of Justice to the petitioner where the JudiCial consolence of the ' p ’ igh Court dictates it to act lest a gross failure of instice or gross niustice should occasron and the same should not be exerc1sed for COI‘I‘Ecmg m€r€ €ITOIS lii the instant case the Court below allowmg the application of i g1 he respondent No has directed the petitioner to present herself for ross examination With an observation that the interest of the petitioner (Non-applicant No 1) and that of the respondent No 2 (Non— i k _ "i D ‘o ' A c a r t p N b f t a p c ‘ C o p b T H ’i t c applicant NO 9) is onposed to each 011161" thé/refom' 'in'tha interest of} Justlce aifomled an opportumty of cross exammanon to the respandenp No 2 or elss 1t would cause more damage In the consltiered opnuon of thls Court tht mpugn€droxd€rwou1d not cause anv'brejudice to the petltloner Whlch mav occasmn any g1ave mJustlce to her or gross r lit. failure of Justlce In these cncumstances. 110 case 1s made out for " ~ ‘ mterference w1th the mmugned Qrder m exemlse of Junsdlcuon under ’ Article 227 of the Constltunon of Indla Accordmgly, the ulstant 7 pet1t1011 bemg devo1d of substance 1s hereby dlsunssed at the adlmssmn stage 1tself L l ‘ inhiréi‘dra-Mis’iigaf: Sd/ \ : _ : ‘ Judge V I