IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 8021 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: December 09, 2010 Hari Singh Saini. …Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and another. … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH 1. Whether reporters of local news papers may be Allowed to see judgment? 2. To be referred to reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr. Tara Chand Dhanwal, Advocate. for the petitioner. Alok Singh, J. (Oral) Petitioner has invoked supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, impugning the order dated 07.10.2010 passed by learned District Judge, Bhiwani, thereby allowing the application seeking condonation of almost 4 years in filing the appeal. Learned Appellate Court has condoned the delay in filing the appeal on payment of cost of Rs.20,000/-. Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Jai Singh and others vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and another reported in C.R. No.8021 of 2010 (2010) 9 Supreme Court Cases 385 has held that supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India must be exercised within the well- recognized constraints. It cannot be exercised like a “bull in a china shop”, to correct all errors of judgment of a court, or tribunal, acting within the limits of its jurisdiction. This correctional jurisdiction can be exercised in cases where orders have been passed in grave dereliction of duty or in flagrant abuse of fundamental principles of law or justice. In the opinion of this Court, while condoning the delay in filing the appeal, learned Appellate Court has exercised discretion in a judicial fashion, hence, I am not inclined to invoke my supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Dismissed. December 09, 2010 ( Alok Singh ) vkd Judge 2