1 lpa109.11.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 109 OF 2011 IN WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.147 OF 2011 WRIT PETITION NO. 7391 OF 2010 Shri Anandrao Dnyaneshwar Deshmukh & others ..Appellants Vs. Grampanchayat, Chakan .. Respondent Mr. S.G.Karandikar i/by Ashok B. Tajane for the Appellant. None for the Respondent. CORAM : P.B. MAJMUDAR AND A.A. SAYED, JJ. DATE : 7TH JUNE, 2011. P.C. 1. This appeal is filed against the order of the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 7391 of 2010, by which the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the present appellants. The order passed by the the learned Civil Judge S.D., Pune below Exh. 33 in Special Civil Suit No. 784 of 2010 was challenged before the learned Single Judge. The trial Court by passing order below Exh.33 in that Special Civil Suit appointed the Commissioner for the purpose of local inspection. The said interlocutory order was challenged before the learned Single Judge in Writ 2 lpa109.11.sxw Petition No. 7391 of 2010. The learned Single Judge rejected the petition while granting the liberty to the present appellant to challenge the impugned order in case any appeal is required to be filed against the final order in the suit. In our view, the order of the learned Single Judge is not required to be interfered with as the original order of the trial Court is purely at an interlocutory stage. Though, prima facie it is doubtful whether such LPA is maintainable as the original petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order of the trial Court, yet we have heard the learned Counsel for the appellants on merits. According to us, the trial Court has not committed any error of law and jurisdiction and the learned Single Judge has rightly not interfered with the said order in its extra ordinary jurisdiction. In the case of Kokkanda B. Poondacha & Ors. Vs. K.D. Ganapathi & Anr., AIR 2011 S.C. 1353. The Apex Court it its judgment observed in para 9 and 10 as under : " In Shalini Shyam Shetty V. Rajendra Shankar Patil ( Supra) (1010 AIR SCQ 6387), the Court again examined the scope of the High Court's power under Article 227 of the Constitution and laid down the following proposition : "Article 227 can be invoked by the High Court suo motu as a custodian of justice. An improper and a frequent exercise of this power will be counterproductive and will divest this extraordinary power of its strength and vitality. The power is discretionary and has to be exercised very sparingly on equitable principle. This reserve and exceptional power of judicial intervention is not to be exercised just for grant of relief in individual cases but should be directed for promotion of public confidence in the administration in the larger public interest whereas Article 226 is meant for protection of individual grievances. Therefore, the power under Article 227 may be unfettered but its exercise is subject to high 3 lpa109.11.sxw degree of judicial discipline. The object of superintendence under Article 227, both administrative and judicial, is to maintain efficiency, smooth and orderly functioning of the entire machinery of justice in such a way as it does not bring it into any disrepute. The power of interference under Article 227 is to be kept to the minimum to ensure that the wheel of justice does not come to a halt and the fountain of justice remains pure and unpolluted in order to maintain public confidence in the functioning of the tribunals and courts subordinate to the High Court". The learned Single judge of the High Court totally ignored the principles and parameters laid down by this Court for exercise of power under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution qua an interlocutory order passed by the Subordinate Court and set aside the order of the trial Court without assigning any tangible reason." 2. In view of what is stated above, we do not find any substance in the appeal. Hence appeal is dismissed. 3. In view of dismissal of the LPA, nothing survives in the Civil Application; the application is disposed of accordingly. ( A.A. SAYED, J. ) (P.B. MAJMUDAR, J.)