INTHEH<3»N^IAHIGHCO^ST©FCHHATTIS^^ BILASFUR (C.G.l W.P (2271 No.^57^>of 2011 r -^ PEnTlQNERS/ Defendants 3. iy:.^.5-CYi ^M"~fy ^ :1. Smt.Chhoto Dasi, W/o Late Nimai Mandal, aged about 45 years, 2. Shekhar Mandal, S/o Nimai Mandal,aged about 25 years, SurjendLi Mandal, S/o Late Nimai Mandal, aged about 22 years Ratan Mandal, S/o Late Nimai Mandal, aged about 20 years All R/o Avinash Nagar (V.P. 124), Tahsil-Pakhanjur, E^Strict- Kanker (C.Cr.) •wl^:^~ VERSUS RESPONDENTS/ Plaintiffs : 1. Subal Mandal, S/o Late Sharat Mandal, aged about 45 years, 2. KrishnaMandal, S/o Late Sharat Mandal, aged about 40 years, 3. Shashthi Mandal, aged about 60 years, AU R/oAvinash Nagar (P.V.-124), Tahsil-Pakhanjur, Dista-ict- Kanker (C.G:) 4. State of Chhattisgarh, though the CoUector, Kanker (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1 PARTICULARS OF THE PETITIONERS :- As stated above in cause title. 2. PARTICULARS OF THE RESPONDENTS :- As stated above in cause title. T-<- mGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASFUR ) . • • * . •...• • • ' • • .. • • S.B: Hon'bleShriPraShantKumarMishra Writ Petition (227) No. 2379/2011 PETITIONERS RESPONDENTS Smt.C'hhotp Dasi and othere Vereus Subal Mandal and others Appearanee: ShriBharatRajput, counselforlhepetitioners. Sfari Arvmd Dubey, Panel Lawyer for Ae State. WRITPETITIONUNDERARTICLE2270FTHE CONSTITUriON OF INDIA ORALORDER (3.05.2011) Trial Court has allowed the plaintifia application uiKler Section 65oftheEvidenceActpennittingthemtoleadsecondaryevidence. (2) Plaiatiffs have filed the suit for deelaration of title, partition, separate possession and permanent injunction, on the basis of document namely rehabilitation registration certificate which, according to tlle plaintiff was issued jointly in the name of plaintiffs and the defendants. * (3) Petitioners/defendants are disputing existence of any such "< document. (4) It has been mentioned in the impugned order that m answer to plamtiffs application/aptice to produce document tiie petitioners were not able td produee the said dc^ments and thereaf^r the present licationunderSection65ofEvidenceActwasmoved. -2 (5) In the opinion of this Court the parties to the suit should be allowed sufficient opportunities to establish their case and farther that mere permitting a party to fhe suit to lead secondary evidence would not by itself will dispense with the requu-ement of proof of the contents of the document. Even after marking of the document as exhibit, parties relying on the document is required to prove the contents ofthe documents. In the matter ofSait Tarajee Khimchand and others Vs. Yelamarti Satyam and ofhers, AIR 1971 SC 1865 it has been held that mere marking ofa document as an exhibit does not dispense with the proofofits contents. (6) In view ofthe above and in viewofthe limited jurisdiction available to this court under Article 227 ofthe Constitution oflndia and fartiier seeking guidance laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of Celma CoeDio Pereira (Ms) and others Vs. UUus Mahabaleshwar Kholkar and others reported in (2010) 1 SCC 217, Ihe Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down principles as to when High Court would bejustified in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 ofthe Constitution oflndia. Relevant paragraphs 30,31, 32 and 33 ofthe reportare extracted hereunder: "30. In Bathutmal Rcdchcmd Oswal v. Lcocmibai R. Tarta, (1975}lSCC858thisCourfheld: (SCCp. 865,para7) 7. ... The High Court carmot in gwse ofexercising itsjurisdictidn under Article 227 canvert itselfinto a court of appeal when the kgislature has not conferreda right ofappealandmade the decision of •^the subordinate court or tribimalfinal onfacts. -a-a^ ,ff -<, ^ fl. _ it, ^!Sis?-B'SSi5, S •<ljj;tS£S°S^ f, "'•^-,-^s^^ -3 31. In State v. Na\yot Scmdhu, (2003) 6SCC 641: 2003 iS.CC (Cri) J545 this Court expktined the power ofthe High Court widerArticle 227 thus: (SCCpp. 656-57, para 28} "28. Thus the law is that Article 227 of the Constitution oflndla gjves theHigh Court thepower of supertntendence over all courts and tribimals thrcmghout the territories in relatian to which it exercises jurisdictian. This jurisdiction ccmnot be limifed or fettered by any Act of the State Legislature. The supervisoryjurisdiction extends to keepingthe subordinate tribimals withm the linrits of their authority and to seeing that they obey the law. The pawers imderArticle 227 are wide and can be used, to meet the ends ofjustice. They can be used to interfere even vrith an interlociitory order. However the power widzr Article 227 is a discretionary power and it is difficult to attribute to an orckr oftheHigh Court, suchasowce ofpcrwer, when theHigh Ccwrt itselfdoes not in termspurport to exercise any such discrefionary power. It is settled law that this power of judicial supermtendence, under Article 227, must be exercised sparingty cmd only to keep subordinate courts and tribtmals 'within the bounds of their authority and not to correct mere errws. Further, where ffie statute bcms the exercise of revisianal powers it •would . require very exceptianal circwwstances to •warrant interference imderArticle 227 ofthe Constitution oflndia since the power of .superintendence was nof meant to circumvent ^tatutoiy law. It is settled law that the Jurisdiction •sf' S ^meas&. 1 v{ '^;;£:&^"^^ ^- "ii^5^i,.-^^" ' • -4- M under Article 227 could not be exercised 'as the cloak ofan appeal in disguise '.' 32. The cforesaid two decisions andfew other decisions, namety, Chcmdavarkar Sita Ratna Rao v. "Ashalata S. Guram. (1986) 4 SCC 447, State of Maharashtra v. Mlhnd, (2001) 1 SCC 4 : 2001 SCC (L&S)-117 and Ranj'eetSinghv.RaviPrakash, (2004) 3 SCC682 came to be considered by fhis Court m ShamshadAhmady.Tilak RajBajaj, (2008) 9SCC 1 and fhis Court held: (TilakRqf case, (2008)9SCGl,SCCpp.lO-ll,pca-a38) 38. Though ppwers of a High Court under Articles 226 and 227 are very witie and extensive over all courts cmd tribunals throughcwt the territories m relation to which tf exercises jurisdiction, such powers must be exercised •within the Umits of law. The power is supervisory in nature. TheHigh Court does na:t act as a court of appeal ora ccwrt oferror. It canneither review nor reappredate, nor reweigh the evidence upon which deterrmnation of a subordiiwte court or inferior trlbwial purports to be based or to correct errors of fact or even oflaw cmd to substttute its own decision for that ofthe nrferiar court or tribunal. The powers are requiredto be exercised most sparingfy and onty in appropriate ccises jn order t6 keep the subordinate courts andmferior tribUnals'within the limits dflaw." 33. In light of fhe aforesaid legal position conceming jurisdiction oftheHigh CoiirtunderArticle 227, which the High Courtfailed to keep inmind, it nwst be held that in ^the facts cmd circumstances ofthe case andthe findings ^ffi^iS^^^^ '..--.•s^ss-ss^^ y S 9 t -S- recorded by fhe Additional Rent Cantroller as well as the Admmistrative Tribunal, the Hi^i Court was notjustifled m mteifering with the concurrent orders of evictton based onthe groimd ofsub-tetting mexercise of ite power under Article 227 qftheConstitution oflndia." (7) In view ofthe above, this court does not find any subsfance which deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. °^-