c BEFORE THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR f CHHATTISGARH ) /2011 ?L27. W.P. JSfNo. PETITIONERS r RESPONDENTS iiu !lBS^tAt^E34 ^*!""B*"1 1. Babulal S/o Moujiram. Baya, aged about'60 years, R/o Pragati Nagar, Rishali Sector Bhilai, Tahsil 85 Distt. Durg (C.G.) 2. Laxminath S/o Moujiram Baya, aged about 57 years, R/o VUlage-Ghotiya, Tahsil Balod, Distt. Durg (C.G.) VERSUS 1. Bir Singh (Dead) S/o Dhel Singh Yadav, aged about 55 years, R/o Sihawa Chowk, Dharatari through Legal Heir's A. Siya Bai Wd/o Late Bir Singh Yadav, aged about 50 years, B. Manoj Kumar S/o Late Bir Singh, aged about 28 years, C. Narendra Kumar S/o Late Bir Singh, aged about 23 years, D. Ku. Mamta D/o Late Bir Singh, aged about 19 v ^ s^S^^SSs-SSs ^ 2. years. AU A to D. are R/o Village-Nawagaon, Tahsil 85 Distt. Dhamtari (C.G.) E. Smt. Gayatri Yadav, D/o Late Bir Singh Yadav, aged about 21 years and wife of Suresh Yadav R/o Village-Bande (Bhanu Pratappur) Distt. Kanker (C.G.) - F. Smt. Saroj Yadav D/o Late Bir Singh Yadav, aged about 32 years and wife of Bhanu Pratap Yadav, R/o Village- Charama, Distt. Kanker (C.G.) Srawan Kiunar S/o Uma Shankar Rajput, aged about 40 years, R/o Sunderganj Ward Dhamtari, Tahsil 85 Distt. Dhamtari. 3. State of Chhattisgarh Raipur, Through Collector Dhamtari (C.G.) v "f°^- "Fim°f°ai IfflBsl I ^5 WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ^ mGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR S.B: Hon'ble Shri Prashant Kumar Mishra Writ Petition f227VNo. 2378/2011 PETITIONERS RESPONDENTS Babidal and another Versus Bir Sin^i (Dead) through Legal Heirs and others Appearance: Shri B.P. Singh, counsel forthe petitioners. Shri Aron Sao, Govemment Advocate for the State. WRIT PETITION UNDERARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTrrUTION OF INDIA ORALORDER (3.05.2011) In a suit filed by Bir Singh (since deceased) and represented through his legal heirs/respondents No.l (A) to 1 (F) agamst one Srawan Kumar, present petitioners have moved an application under Order 1 Rule 10 ofCPC for their impleadment as defendants. (2) The Trial Court, by the impugned order, has rejected petitioners prayer by observing that in the proceedings pending before the Tahsildar, Dhamtari, the present petitioners have raised objectionwhich was over mled and the petitioners have also failed to obtain any succession certificate. Thus, aceording to the leamed Trial Court the present belated application filed by the petitioners does not deserve to be allowed as they do not appear to be a necessary'or proper party. (3) Leamed counsel for the petitioners would submit that flie y'petitiofters are in litigation and have raised objection before the z ^ T revenue authorities and have al.so filed a suit in the court ofCivil Judge, Class-II, Dhamtari which is pending, therefore they are interested in thfi out come ofthe litigation and anyA(derih &vour of the plaintifis wilt have animpactontheir tide. . (4) In matter ofRazia Begum Vs. Sahebzadi Anwar Begum and otiiers, AIR 1958 SG 886 Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down Ifae lawthatjurisdiction underQrder 1 RulelO ofCPCis^essentially one ofjudicial discretion. (5) Trial Court has assigned reasons in its elabor&te order as to how the present petitioners are not properw necessary parties and the reasoning assigned by f(le Trial Court does riotappear'to be perverse. (6) In the matter of Subodh Kiunar Gupta and oihers Vs. Alpana Gupta and others, (2005) 11 SCC 578 it has been held that ordinarily High Court should not interfere in the order passed by Ifae TrialCourtinexerciseofpowersunderOrder IRulelOofCPC. (7) In the matter of GeUna Goelho Pereira (Ms) ahd others Vs. Ulhas Mahabaleshwar KhoUiar and pthers reported in (2010) 1 SCC 217 Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down principles as to when High Court would be justified in exercise ofits jimsdiction under Article227 ofthe Constitution oflndia. Relevant paragraphs 30, 31, 32 and 33 ofthe report are extracted hereunder: "30. In Bafhutmal RcachcmdOswalv.Laxmibai R. Tarta, (1975) 1 SCC 838thisCourtheld:(SCCp.86S, para7) 7. ... The HighGourt camtotm gwse ofexercismg ^ itsjurisdictionunclffrA.rtiete227 emivertitselfMoa •sv9li?*WS. ..^^!& /^^. 1 "V ^»'< i ~'~ssa-isM2Si? ^' £& court of appeal when the legislature has not conferred a right ofappeal and made the decisian of the subonlinate court ortribunalflnalanfacts." 31. Jn Statev.NavjotSamSiu. (2003) 6SCC 641: 2003 SCC (Cri) 1545 this Court explained fhepower oftheHigh CourtwiderArticle 227thvs: ftCGpp. 656-57, para 28) "28. Thus the law is that Arttcle 227 of the Constitution oflndia gtves the High Court thepower of supermtendence over all courts and tribunals throughout the territones in rekition towhich it exercises jurisdiction. This jurisdicfwn ccamot be Itnuted or fettered by tmy Act of fhe State Legislature. The supervisoryjuriSdiction extends to keepingthe suiordinate fribunals'withinthe limits of their authority and to seeing that they ohey the law. The powers imder Article 227 are wide and can be used, to meet the ends ofjustlce. They can be used to interfere even-with dn interlocutory order. However the power imder Article 227 is a discretionary pawer cmd it is difficult to attribute to anorderoftheHighCourf, suchasource ofpower, whentheHigh Court itseydoesnot in tennspurport to exercise dny such discretionary power. It is settled law thaf tkis power of jw&cial supermtendenee, imder Article 227, must be exercised sparmgly cmd wtly to keep subordinate courts and tribunals withm the bounds of their authonty cmdnot to correct mere errors. Further, where the statute bcms the exercise of revisianal powers it -would require very excepfional circumstcmces to •warrant iftterference wider Article !"»:3Ki ^Jf. -Lf- ^ 227 ofthe Constitution oflmMa since the power of superintendence was not meant to circunwent statutory law. It is settled law that the Jurisdiction uni&r Article 227 could not be exercised 'as the clocik ofandppeal in disguise'." 32. The aforesaidtwoclecisionsandfewotherdecisions, namefy, Chandavarkar Sita Ratna Rao v. Ashalata S. Guram, (1986) 4 SCC 447, State of Maharashtra v. Milind, (2001) 1 SCC 4 : 2001 SCC (L&S) 117 and Reay'eetSmghv. RciviPrakash. (2004) 3SCC 682 cameto be considered by this Caurt m Shamshad Ahmad v. Tilak &gBafcg,(2008)9 SCC 1 cndthis Court held:-(Tilak Raj case, (2008)9SCGl,SGCpp. 10-11, para 38) "38. Though powers of a High Court under Articles 226 and 227 are very •wide and extensive over alt courts <md tribunals thr<sughout the territories in relation to which it exercises juristSction. such powers must be exercised within the llmits of law. The power is supervisory in nature. The High Court does not act as a court of appeal or a court oferror. It can netther review nor reappreciate, nor reweigh the evidence uponwhieh deterrmnation of a subordmate court or inferior tribunalpufportsto bebasedor to correct erfors of fact or even oflawcmd tosubstitute its owi decision for fhat ofthe wfenorcowt or tnbwial. The powers are required tobe exercised most sparingly cmd only in appropriate cases in order to keep the suborSnate courts and mferior tribunals •wtthin the "limitsoflaw." '"ri~s—g"»'-^«wg I'iSSR&i ^^^?K izS. i%ii;i1 Bltl K1 SESI 11 :<0 I 1t: •ti. s,I ia: 1 <t 1 »'; wI w . 1 t; t^ M ~~1 ^ ^ 1 1 1 D- <<t ^ !3•t l't 1 1 1 g 00 ^ ^' <S Oq """<?-. K'i ,':-1 --.'t •' ^ re ,'l ^ ''K^-' .•^'l'&f ^\..s -" s ti22®W-^ ^ 1 <3^, 0<S