IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.22527 of 2011 Sanjay Kumar Gupta Versus Uday Kumar & Ors ---------------------------------- 02. 19.12.2011. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner praying for a direction to the Sub Judge IX, Patna for expeditious disposal of title suit No.318 of 1997. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since last 14 years, even no issues have been framed and the plaintiff is unnecessarily getting adjournments in the case. It is well settled principle of law that the High Court exercises supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in administrative side and also in judicial side. For exercise of judicial supervision, order of the Court or the tribunal must be there before High Court. Here, admittedly, no such order has been filed before this Court. In the case of M/s M.M.C. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Commercial Tax 2009 A.I.R. S.C.W. 767, the Apex Court has held that under Article 226 an order, direction or writ is to issue to a person, authority or the State. In a proceeding under that Article the person, authority or State against whom direction/ order or writ is sought is a necessary party. Under Article 227, however, what comes up before the - 2 - High Court is the order or Judgment of a subordinate Court or tribunal for the purpose of ascertaining whether in giving such Judgment or order that subordinate Court or tribunal has acted within its authority and according to law. Now, therefore, in the present case without their being any order, the Court cannot exercise judicial supervision. The petitioner is not moving the High Court in the administrative side. So far directing the Court to dispose of the suit expeditiously is concerned, in my opinion, no such relief can be granted under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In the case of Shalini Shyam Sheety Vs. Rajendra Shanker Patil 2010 (8) S.C.C. 329, the Apex Court has held that there is growing trend amongst several High Courts to entertain writ petition in cases of pure property dispute like partition suit, execution of a decree, landlord and tenant dispute and also in a cases of money decree. In some cases, the High Court in a routine manner entertain petitions under Article 227 over such dispute and such petitions are treated as writ petitions. As a result of frequent interference of the High Court, disposal of cases of the civil and criminal Courts gets impeded. In 2010 (9) S.C.C. 385 Jai Singh Vs. Municipal Corporation, the Apex Court held that the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India - 3 - has the jurisdiction to insure that all subordinate Courts as well as statutory or quashi judicial, tribunals exercised the powers vested in them within the bounds of their authority. The High Court has the power and jurisdiction to insure that they act in accordance with well established principle of law. The High Court is vested with the powers of superintendence and/ or judicial revision even in matter where no revision or appeal lies to the High Court. It is, however, well to remember the well known adage that the greater the power the greater the care and caution and exercise thereof. The High Court is, therefore, expected to exercise such wide power with great care and caution and circumspection. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case that no order is before this Court, this Court is unable to exercise judicial supervision. In my opinion, therefore, this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable for the relief claimed by the petitioner. Only because the High Court can pass such order, the High Court should not pass such routine order on the application. Thus writ application devoid of any merit and accordingly, it is dismissed. Sanjeev/- (Mungeshwar Sahoo,J.)